I find it ubsurd for a bunch of monkeys wearing pants to bother to even discuss this topic. It is pointless to debate humanity as a whole, when most of the simiens on this rock fail to realize that everything is finite. I use to spend alot of time trying to figure out the greater scheme and to understand the why. I never got my answer. Instead I only got more questions.
But, if you just want an answer, I believe that nature and nurture both play a role in how we develop and what type of people we will become.
PeakOil is You
THE Human Nature Thread (merged)
Re: What is human nature?
by evilmonkeyspanker » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 00:10:38
-
evilmonkeyspanker - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Missouri
Re: What is human nature?
by turmoil » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 00:15:21
42
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
-
turmoil - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Re: What is human nature?
by rwwff » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 01:02:30
We are firmware and software. The software runs the show, but the firmware built the theatre.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
Re: What is human nature?
by gg3 » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 01:56:28
The best available answer, compiled from all of the relevant branches of science is:
All measurable human characteristics can be described by a "normal curve" (bell-shaped curve) for the general population of humans. The obvious ones are height, weight, general intelligence, and general strength. But this also applies to emotional characteristics (personality), and to behavioral characteristics (altrusim/selfishness, etc.)
You can pick any spot on the normal curve and say it represents the whole, but that's unscientific at best and self-reinforcing for better or worse.
Genetics establish outer limits of potential. Enculturation establishes a set of limits for any given society, that is within the limits of genetics (that is, cultures select for subsets of the genetic potential). Individual life-experience selects for another subset of an individual's genetic potential, which is usually within but occasionally outside of, the limits established by the individual's culture. The pattern-seeking and synthetic (imaginative) capabilities of the human brain enable individuals to create what-if scenarios that may also affect their behavior. The quantum indeterminacy present in the substructures of the neurons in the brain provides the physical basis for free will.
Free will plus the synthetic capabilities of the brain provide a basis for individuals to choose to break out of the limits of their enculturation.
There may or may not be such a thing as a transcendent soul, but if there is, its nature is filtered through the physical structures of the brain. Thus, operationally, it could be considered as similar in its effects to the combined output of the pattern-seeking, synthetic, and free-will components of the individual mind.
---
The phrase "survival of the fittest," is, strictly speaking, less than scientific because it fails to operationalize the independent variable: "fitness." Fitness for what set of conditions or what goal-state? Unspecified "fitness" is teleology-by-abdication: it holds that whatever outcome occurred was the "correct" one, and thus is unfalsifyable. Therefore much better to use the term "natural selection," which refers only to a process: nature selects for any given set of conditions.
---
Human societies are more aptly described as social ecosystems. Human social ecosystems show a number of dynamics that are similar to those existing in ecosystems sans humans: cooperation (sharing resources to achieve a shared goal), competition (vying for achievement of a goal within the limits of an agreed rule-set), symbiosis (sharing unlike resources to achieve unlike goals, i.e. mutual benefit such as trade), parasitism (taking from another person to benefit oneself, without providing benefit in return), and predation (taking from another person in such a manner as causes the death or disability of the other).
Cooperation is inherently conservative: it conserves gains that have been made, and resources needed to make further gains. Competition is inherently progressive: it stretches boundaries and seeks new solutions in order to succeed. The ability of a human social ecosystem to survive over a long term depends upon its ability to successfully prevent or otherwise limit parasitic and predatory behaviors among its members (this is where systems of law and other rule-sets come into play).
---
Social behaviors are not a veneer covering up instinctive barbarity, any more than barbaric behaviors are a veneer covering up intrinsic vulnerability.
Organized societies are steps uphill on the entropy gradient (i.e. away from entropy) toward increased complexity (syntropy or negentropy). The further up the entropy gradient a given society manages to climb, the more it becomes vulnerable to attack. Thus comes the need for organized defense.
---
The core characteristics of civilization are: a) increase in knowledge over time, and b) decrease in violence over time. From these we can derive the rest of the list including human and civil rights, lawfulness and order, liberty and equality under law, freedom of person and of enterprise, and the responsibilities that accompany the various rights and freedoms.
---
"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are in fact hardwired into the human organism: we are indeed endowed with these as our nature and thus as our right, by our Creator (God and/or Nature, as you prefer; I'll make the case from Nature for the present purposes):
Life: All living organisms maintain stability of their biological homeostasis, and resist forces that attempt to destabilize it to the degree that would kill them.
Liberty: Free will is built into the human brain at the level of quantum indeterminacy in substructures in the neurons. It is possible that other organisms with sufficiently complex brains also have free will to some degree; as of yet we do not know the threshold of complexity needed for this to occur.
Pursuit of happiness: This is an outgrowth of the homeostatic nature of living organisms. Disturbance of homeostasis is perceived as pain or as an aversive stimulus to which an organism will respond with attempts to re-establish homeostasis or through attempts to fight or flee. Pain and pleasure are hard-wired into organisms and their effects can be observed in avoidance and approach behaviors respectively.
----
More later, gotta' go do laundry...
All measurable human characteristics can be described by a "normal curve" (bell-shaped curve) for the general population of humans. The obvious ones are height, weight, general intelligence, and general strength. But this also applies to emotional characteristics (personality), and to behavioral characteristics (altrusim/selfishness, etc.)
You can pick any spot on the normal curve and say it represents the whole, but that's unscientific at best and self-reinforcing for better or worse.
Genetics establish outer limits of potential. Enculturation establishes a set of limits for any given society, that is within the limits of genetics (that is, cultures select for subsets of the genetic potential). Individual life-experience selects for another subset of an individual's genetic potential, which is usually within but occasionally outside of, the limits established by the individual's culture. The pattern-seeking and synthetic (imaginative) capabilities of the human brain enable individuals to create what-if scenarios that may also affect their behavior. The quantum indeterminacy present in the substructures of the neurons in the brain provides the physical basis for free will.
Free will plus the synthetic capabilities of the brain provide a basis for individuals to choose to break out of the limits of their enculturation.
There may or may not be such a thing as a transcendent soul, but if there is, its nature is filtered through the physical structures of the brain. Thus, operationally, it could be considered as similar in its effects to the combined output of the pattern-seeking, synthetic, and free-will components of the individual mind.
---
The phrase "survival of the fittest," is, strictly speaking, less than scientific because it fails to operationalize the independent variable: "fitness." Fitness for what set of conditions or what goal-state? Unspecified "fitness" is teleology-by-abdication: it holds that whatever outcome occurred was the "correct" one, and thus is unfalsifyable. Therefore much better to use the term "natural selection," which refers only to a process: nature selects for any given set of conditions.
---
Human societies are more aptly described as social ecosystems. Human social ecosystems show a number of dynamics that are similar to those existing in ecosystems sans humans: cooperation (sharing resources to achieve a shared goal), competition (vying for achievement of a goal within the limits of an agreed rule-set), symbiosis (sharing unlike resources to achieve unlike goals, i.e. mutual benefit such as trade), parasitism (taking from another person to benefit oneself, without providing benefit in return), and predation (taking from another person in such a manner as causes the death or disability of the other).
Cooperation is inherently conservative: it conserves gains that have been made, and resources needed to make further gains. Competition is inherently progressive: it stretches boundaries and seeks new solutions in order to succeed. The ability of a human social ecosystem to survive over a long term depends upon its ability to successfully prevent or otherwise limit parasitic and predatory behaviors among its members (this is where systems of law and other rule-sets come into play).
---
Social behaviors are not a veneer covering up instinctive barbarity, any more than barbaric behaviors are a veneer covering up intrinsic vulnerability.
Organized societies are steps uphill on the entropy gradient (i.e. away from entropy) toward increased complexity (syntropy or negentropy). The further up the entropy gradient a given society manages to climb, the more it becomes vulnerable to attack. Thus comes the need for organized defense.
---
The core characteristics of civilization are: a) increase in knowledge over time, and b) decrease in violence over time. From these we can derive the rest of the list including human and civil rights, lawfulness and order, liberty and equality under law, freedom of person and of enterprise, and the responsibilities that accompany the various rights and freedoms.
---
"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are in fact hardwired into the human organism: we are indeed endowed with these as our nature and thus as our right, by our Creator (God and/or Nature, as you prefer; I'll make the case from Nature for the present purposes):
Life: All living organisms maintain stability of their biological homeostasis, and resist forces that attempt to destabilize it to the degree that would kill them.
Liberty: Free will is built into the human brain at the level of quantum indeterminacy in substructures in the neurons. It is possible that other organisms with sufficiently complex brains also have free will to some degree; as of yet we do not know the threshold of complexity needed for this to occur.
Pursuit of happiness: This is an outgrowth of the homeostatic nature of living organisms. Disturbance of homeostasis is perceived as pain or as an aversive stimulus to which an organism will respond with attempts to re-establish homeostasis or through attempts to fight or flee. Pain and pleasure are hard-wired into organisms and their effects can be observed in avoidance and approach behaviors respectively.
----
More later, gotta' go do laundry...
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Re: What is human nature?
by CrudeAwakening » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 04:38:52
Thoughtful post, gg3. Thanks for the perspective.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', ' ')
Social behaviors are not a veneer covering up instinctive barbarity, any more than barbaric behaviors are a veneer covering up intrinsic vulnerability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', ' ')
Social behaviors are not a veneer covering up instinctive barbarity, any more than barbaric behaviors are a veneer covering up intrinsic vulnerability.
I guess I should have elaborated more on what I was getting at there. The way I see it, the greater part of human biological evolution occurred while we were banded together in small groups. Our contacts within the group were predominantly those of our blood relatives, or "extended family". Thus, we've evolved to take care of our immediate family and friends, as well as those other regular contacts with whom we developed a reciprocally altruistic relationship. When confronted with people of a more remote origin, we are much more likely to behave in a barbaric fashion. As societies have grown in size and complexity, opportunities for confrontation between strangers have increased, and societies have developed sophisticated legal systems in order to deter and constrain such behaviour. Hence, in modern societies, we depend on a functioning state apparatus to protect ourselves from the "unkindness of strangers".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')rganized societies are steps uphill on the entropy gradient (i.e. away from entropy) toward increased complexity (syntropy or negentropy). The further up the entropy gradient a given society manages to climb, the more it becomes vulnerable to attack. Thus comes the need for organized defense.
Do you mean attack from within? Historically, more complex, technologically advanced societies have tended to emerge victorious in confrontations with less complex ones, at least until the more complex society has decayed from within under the burden of its own complexity.
-
CrudeAwakening - Tar Sands
- Posts: 834
- Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: What is human nature?
by gg3 » Sun 06 Aug 2006, 06:08:17
Yo CrudeAwakening, thanks:-)
Re. human biological evolution: You're saying it was the case that most of this occurred early in our history, but do you know this for a fact? That is, start from the demarcation where Homo Sapiens begins (i.e. not from Homo Erectus or some earlier stage): how much biological evolution of Homo Sapiens has occurred, and over what time frame? Seems to me the rate of genetic change should be constant over time, with occasional periods of rapid change due to changing conditions of natural selection.
Agreed, we evolved to take care of those near us (family and friends) and others with whom we have reciprocally altruistic relationships.
But then, what happens when the random stranger appears in our midst...? Depends on the ecological conditions. Under conditions of abundance, the likely scenario is one of reciprocal trade. Under conditions of shortage, the tribe in need is more likely to try to get from the other tribe by any means necessary including taking.
But here again we run into the normal curve. It's difficult to speak for "first contact" situations, since records of them are necessarily few and far between compared to records of ongoing contact. Once we get to ongoing contact, the normal curve becomes operative: average people from one tribe interacting with average people from another tribe. As some people are inherently predatory (one particular point on the normal curve), they will attempt to prey upon others, thus law and defense are created to limit the degree to which this can occur. The same case obtains with parasitism, with the same results in terms of law and defense.
Where I referred to attack, I meant both from within (handled by a legal system) and from without (handled by a military defense). As for comparative complexity, in theory the barbarians have an advantage since they are working the downslope direction on the entropy gradient, whereas more complex socities are working the upslope direction.
And we've seen examples to back this up: the Mongols and the Huns respectively in China and Europe, less complex societies damaging and taking over more complex ones. Arguably, 9/11 was a success as well: people from a less complex society, having views we would characterize as barbarian (e.g. treating women as objects, for example), were able to attack a more complex society and knock the latter downhill a few steps: loss of civil liberties, increase in irrationalism of policy (going after Iraq) leading to degradation of our military strength, etc. And yes it's true that the more complex society was already on its way into the quagmire of decay, but the 9/11 terrorists gave it a shove in the same direction.
Re. human biological evolution: You're saying it was the case that most of this occurred early in our history, but do you know this for a fact? That is, start from the demarcation where Homo Sapiens begins (i.e. not from Homo Erectus or some earlier stage): how much biological evolution of Homo Sapiens has occurred, and over what time frame? Seems to me the rate of genetic change should be constant over time, with occasional periods of rapid change due to changing conditions of natural selection.
Agreed, we evolved to take care of those near us (family and friends) and others with whom we have reciprocally altruistic relationships.
But then, what happens when the random stranger appears in our midst...? Depends on the ecological conditions. Under conditions of abundance, the likely scenario is one of reciprocal trade. Under conditions of shortage, the tribe in need is more likely to try to get from the other tribe by any means necessary including taking.
But here again we run into the normal curve. It's difficult to speak for "first contact" situations, since records of them are necessarily few and far between compared to records of ongoing contact. Once we get to ongoing contact, the normal curve becomes operative: average people from one tribe interacting with average people from another tribe. As some people are inherently predatory (one particular point on the normal curve), they will attempt to prey upon others, thus law and defense are created to limit the degree to which this can occur. The same case obtains with parasitism, with the same results in terms of law and defense.
Where I referred to attack, I meant both from within (handled by a legal system) and from without (handled by a military defense). As for comparative complexity, in theory the barbarians have an advantage since they are working the downslope direction on the entropy gradient, whereas more complex socities are working the upslope direction.
And we've seen examples to back this up: the Mongols and the Huns respectively in China and Europe, less complex societies damaging and taking over more complex ones. Arguably, 9/11 was a success as well: people from a less complex society, having views we would characterize as barbarian (e.g. treating women as objects, for example), were able to attack a more complex society and knock the latter downhill a few steps: loss of civil liberties, increase in irrationalism of policy (going after Iraq) leading to degradation of our military strength, etc. And yes it's true that the more complex society was already on its way into the quagmire of decay, but the 9/11 terrorists gave it a shove in the same direction.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Re: What is human nature?
by Reality_Conference » Tue 15 Aug 2006, 12:05:15
I think this is a very interesting question. I am reading a book by Ernest Becker right now. I have two. I don't know if you have ever read any of his but it is sheer fascination. He has an anthropology background and a sort of "no holds barred" style.
I just recently became re-interested in this question of human nature after reading about the case of Sylvia Likens. She was a young girl who, for all practical purposes, was tortured to death over a two week period in Indianapolis, IN. This happened in 1965 and was done by one adult woman as the ringleader and the neighborhood children, including her own, because apparently Sylvia 'needed to be taught a lesson."
I've also just finished re-reading Lord of the Flies. Heart of Darkness is another book that goes into this question. And I just don't know. My heart would like to believe the way Anne Frank wrote in her diary that "humans are basically good." But that question becomes more and more muddled when faced with the prospect of an energy depleted world considering what we have done to one another in the "good days."
I know what I want to believe--that humans will band together and start to see themselves as equals, that we will overcome whatever obstacles are in our path and that we will do it together, but history tells me this will probably not be the case. That pretty much sums up my thoughts about what Peak Oil might do to us.
I just recently became re-interested in this question of human nature after reading about the case of Sylvia Likens. She was a young girl who, for all practical purposes, was tortured to death over a two week period in Indianapolis, IN. This happened in 1965 and was done by one adult woman as the ringleader and the neighborhood children, including her own, because apparently Sylvia 'needed to be taught a lesson."
I've also just finished re-reading Lord of the Flies. Heart of Darkness is another book that goes into this question. And I just don't know. My heart would like to believe the way Anne Frank wrote in her diary that "humans are basically good." But that question becomes more and more muddled when faced with the prospect of an energy depleted world considering what we have done to one another in the "good days."
I know what I want to believe--that humans will band together and start to see themselves as equals, that we will overcome whatever obstacles are in our path and that we will do it together, but history tells me this will probably not be the case. That pretty much sums up my thoughts about what Peak Oil might do to us.
-
Reality_Conference - Wood
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Black Warrior
Re: What is human nature?
by Chaparral » Tue 15 Aug 2006, 19:42:35
Good post gg3.
Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" offers a good starting point. Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" is an interesting exposition of the concept of free will. There are others but they by and large, figure into the above two books.
Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" offers a good starting point. Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" is an interesting exposition of the concept of free will. There are others but they by and large, figure into the above two books.
-
Chaparral - Tar Sands
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Dead civilization walking
Re: What is human nature?
by katkinkate » Tue 15 Aug 2006, 20:34:43
The human species is an animal, specifically a primate. Like most other animals, when resources are plentiful and easy to obtain we are predominately peaceful. We are social animals and band together for mutual protection, company and co-operative efforts. In order to maintain the usefulness of the group we work for peace within our group, and that's the basic drive of 'civilization', law, manners, custom, fashion, rules and social mores.
When resources get scarce and/or hard to obtain, the 'civilising' drive is pushed to the back seat and we use more agressive methods to get what we need. The harder things get the more violence will become 'acceptable' or at least understandable and to some extent tolerated, by the army, by police, by 'national security forces' and eventually by individuals and small groups.
At the moment, in many countries, violence is against the law and is frowned on socially because there is plenty and violence threatens people's safety and social peace. When things get rough, violence will become more accepted because we all may have to eventually indulge in it to survive and we don't want to have to judge ourselves too harshly for it. Different times, different rules.
When resources get scarce and/or hard to obtain, the 'civilising' drive is pushed to the back seat and we use more agressive methods to get what we need. The harder things get the more violence will become 'acceptable' or at least understandable and to some extent tolerated, by the army, by police, by 'national security forces' and eventually by individuals and small groups.
At the moment, in many countries, violence is against the law and is frowned on socially because there is plenty and violence threatens people's safety and social peace. When things get rough, violence will become more accepted because we all may have to eventually indulge in it to survive and we don't want to have to judge ourselves too harshly for it. Different times, different rules.
Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
-
katkinkate - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: What is human nature?
by CrudeAwakening » Sun 03 Sep 2006, 02:09:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'Y')o CrudeAwakening, thanks:-)
Re. human biological evolution: You're saying it was the case that most of this occurred early in our history, but do you know this for a fact? That is, start from the demarcation where Homo Sapiens begins (i.e. not from Homo Erectus or some earlier stage): how much biological evolution of Homo Sapiens has occurred, and over what time frame? Seems to me the rate of genetic change should be constant over time, with occasional periods of rapid change due to changing conditions of natural selection.
Re. human biological evolution: You're saying it was the case that most of this occurred early in our history, but do you know this for a fact? That is, start from the demarcation where Homo Sapiens begins (i.e. not from Homo Erectus or some earlier stage): how much biological evolution of Homo Sapiens has occurred, and over what time frame? Seems to me the rate of genetic change should be constant over time, with occasional periods of rapid change due to changing conditions of natural selection.
Sorry, gg3, I've been neglecting my own thread
What I was getting at was that the timescale of social evolution is so much more rapid than our biological evolution. Our environment is now changing too rapidly for biological evolution to cope.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut then, what happens when the random stranger appears in our midst...? Depends on the ecological conditions. Under conditions of abundance, the likely scenario is one of reciprocal trade. Under conditions of shortage, the tribe in need is more likely to try to get from the other tribe by any means necessary including taking.
Yes, what we may consider as integral to our identities (such as "I would never kill another human being") are in reality, quite flexible. As pampered Westerners, we have beliefs about ourselves that have largely been formed during years of comfort and plenty, and may well be sorely challenged in the years to come.
-
CrudeAwakening - Tar Sands
- Posts: 834
- Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
