Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[gorski]

Ergo it IS foreign, at least to the very, very great majority of the English, certainly much more alien than in other countries... So, that's how right you are... Can't hear yourself for love or money...

 

[Knotted]

Ergo it IS foreign, at least to the very, very great majority of the English, certainly much more alien than in other countries... So, that's how right you are... Can't hear yourself for love or money...

Is this a joke? In any country there are far more people who know about or have experience of religion than of philosophy.

If there is a qunitessential philosophy of the English bourgeois then it is a mixture of empiricism and bastardised Hegelianism. (Don't forget that there are more Hegelian philosophers in this country than in any other except perhaps the US.)

There is no contradiction between the bastardised Hegelianism that you and phildwyer espouse and empiricism. They just cover different domains. The first covers secular life and the hard, cold logic of empire, the second covers the soperiphic fluff of the bastard church of England that makes it all so well 'considered' and digestable for the masses. The English are both hard nosed realists and vague dithering moralists. These are the facts but they don't effect us in the land of milk and honey.

The perfect philosophers for the English are Popper and Berlin. Science safely demarked and straightforward whereas liberty (ie. our liberty) and the open society (ie. our right to meddle) are given free reign.

You would do well to remember that most of us have had bastardised Hegelian fluff pumped into us since childhood - even if it is not usually given a sophisticated philosophical gloss. Many of us are just thoroughly sick of it.

 

[Knotted]

Some more bastardised Hegelian mush - take a pew:

First verse of the fourteenth chapter of the Second Book of Kings: 'And he said, "But my brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man."' Perhaps I might say the same thing in a different way by quoting you the words of that grand old English poet, W.E. Henley, who said:

"When that One Great Scorer comes
To mark against your name
It matters not who won or lost,
But how you played the game."

'But how you played the game.' Words very meaningful and significant for us here, together, tonight. Words which we might do very much worse than to consider. And I use this word 'consider' advisedly. Because I am using it, you see, in its original sense of 'con-sid—er', of putting one's self in the way of thinking about something.

I want us here, together, tonight to put ourselves in the way of thinking about ... to put ourselves in the way of thinking about, ummh ... what we ought to be putting ourselves in the way of thinking about.

 

[kyser_soze]

The English are both hard nosed realists and vague dithering moralists.

That's a truism! Was it Wilde who said there was nothing more vulgar then the English in one of their periodic fits of morality?

 

[gorski]

You poor deluded sod, Knotted... Trolling helplessly, are we... As in "can't help myself"... Here's a sobering bit you managed to overlook...

But I agree that modernity consists in the abandonment of Greek thought, and specifically in the transition from Aristotelian rationalism to Baconian empiricism, which took place quite suddenly over the seventeenth century. To me, empiricism is an infantile mode of thought. It takes appearance for reality, in the same way that a small child assumes its father is Santa Claus when he dresses up as such.

And that is the connection with capitalism, which bestows determining power on financial signs: on appearances whch have no essential reality. Empiricism and capitalism are both forms of magical thinking, which accord quite precisely with the attitude to life that has traditionally been called 'Satanic.' But of course we all know that Satan 'does not exist....'

Please note that Hegelians do not grow on trees in the UK or the US, for that matter, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation...

I'm afraid I've never really seen the point of Habermas.

Well, in the absence of [hopefully not] violent revolution I see the prospect of Habermas style Radical Democracy much more appealing than what Habermas abandoned, namely the notorious pessimism of the Frankfurt School.

He inherited Adorno's chair, but being a critically minded sod, he followed his own path, of course. He claims that Adorno has hit the wall with his approach and I tend to agree. There was no way out of that one.

Instead, Habermas has engaged the Modernity's other possibilities and I think that not following blindly either Marxian or CT early paradigm has been a revelation and the best paradigm we have. One can see how it can be applied internationally [IR] or nationally, at the EU level, when it comes to all spheres of life.

Frankly, short of a radical sudden change of the production for surplus value becoming profit, I don't see a better option...

 

[gorski]

That's a truism! Was it Wilde who said there was nothing more vulgar then the English in one of their periodic fits of morality?

Here's a few good 'uns:

George Bernard Shaw

Like: "A man of great common sense and good taste - meaning thereby a man without originality or moral courage."

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

"An Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable."

"Beauty is a short-lived tyranny."

"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!"

"Martyrdom: The only way a man can become famous without ability."

"Parentage is a very important profession, but no test of fitness for it is ever imposed in the interest of the children."

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."

"Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power."

"Science never solves a problem without creating ten more."

"Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing."

"The art of government is the organisation of idolatry."

"The love of economy is the root of all virtue."

"We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it."

"I'm an atheist and I thank God for it"

"The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They spell it so abominably that no man can teach himself what it sounds like."

==============================

Oscar Wilde

"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess..."

"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

"True friends stab you in the front."

"Who, being loved, is poor?"

"Woman begins by resisting a man's advances and ends by blocking his retreat."

"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

"Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do"

"A man can be happy with any woman as long as he does not love her."

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

 

[kyser_soze]

Ah, GBS...I like him...not so big a fan of Wilde tho...big fan of his wit, think he was something of a nob tho...I mean this:

"Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do"

Aside from working to feed oneself, for example, not something our Oscar would ever dirty his hands doing...you did forget this one tho:

'A man who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one'

 

[Fruitloop]

"There is no famine in Russia"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

'being cowards, we defeat natural selection under cover of philanthropy'

 

[gorski]

Ah, GBS...I like him...not so big a fan of Wilde tho...big fan of his wit, think he was something of a nob tho...I mean this:

"Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do"

Aside from working to feed oneself, for example, not something our Oscar would ever dirty his hands doing...

Well, I think the time is coming when most physical toil/work will be a thing of the past and this will become a truism...

Moreover, most people will than be forced to "dirty their minds" with difficult ideas of emancipation... It'll all end up in a great, big mess, I think...

 

[urbanrevolt]

Gorski. you've not yet at all established your claim that there is no such thing as innate tendencies to anything- you have only rubbished a straw man version of instinct.

Indeed even there your arguments are somewhat lacking- however, it is not hard to agree with.

However, you seem to be claiming that human beings are entirely socially determined without any role for biology or genes. This is a masssive assumption and yet you seem to just take it as unproblematic.

 

[gorski]

May I refer my right honourable friend to the replies I gave earlier in this thread , distinguishing between reflexes, urges and instincts, carefully dissecting whatever the "pictures" of instincts [rather than "notions"] there are.

Moreover, I carefully dissected where we got our "merely observational" notions from, too. I.e. the rather uncomfortable phenomenon of them going from "social" sciences [Malthus] to "natural" sciences [Wallace/Darwin] and then back to "social" sciences - especially eugenics, Nazis and co., then developmental psychology and whatever else one chooses to connect to a strand/element in Darwinism in creating Social Darwinism, which "simply and elegantly" creates a feeling of "it all fits in quite nicely and neatly, so it must be true, because we feel at ease knowing it" kinda shite...

You will find it in the first 3 pages or so, I believe... Can't go through all that again, sorry...

 

[urbanrevolt]

I did read those pages some time ago. I guess I'll go back and look at it again at some point to indicate why your replies there are not enough.

even your brief attempt here merely attempts to argue against ideas by smear. If sociobiology is so dangerous and I've no doubt a crude version of it is at least demonstrably wrong just tryong to smear it by association is going to get us anywhere useful

 

[Knotted]

Gorski. you've not yet at all established your claim that there is no such thing as innate tendencies to anything- you have only rubbished a straw man version of instinct.

I don't know. I think it was a fair point which doesn't imply a lack of any innate tendencies.

 

[gorski]

even your brief attempt here merely attempts to argue against ideas by smear.

Completely untrue and unfair, I'm happy to say!

I put quite a bit of time and effort into it and wrote in fairly simple terms! I dealt with so many of them on a point-by-point basis, went toe-to-toe with all those Darwinistic simplifications and mythologizing nonsense, only to be told that it's "incomprehensible" for all sorts of "reasons", but very few similar efforts "from the other side of the fence" have been made to actually try to get the critical impetus behind my points... It was the case of "if you're not with us you're against us".

Most responses were coming from a critically uneducated and unfair position, most of the time, needing a dogma more than anything, like a security blanket, afraid of letting go of it, as if one has to fight for it for dear life.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Moreover, I carefully dissected where we got our "merely observational" notions from, too. I.e. the rather uncomfortable phenomenon of them going from "social" sciences [Malthus] to "natural" sciences [Wallace/Darwin] and then back to "social" sciences - especially eugenics, Nazis and co., then developmental psychology and whatever else one chooses to connect to a strand/element in Darwinism in creating Social Darwinism,

is what I meant by smear tactics

I'm not a social Darwinist- in fact I think the misues of biological ideas in social science extremely crude, possibly dangwrous and therefore needs to be answered thoroughly not just by saying sometihng along the lines of the Nazis beleived that.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Yes, agreed, that's animals - no one disputes that. But to immediately presume the same for us... that's quite a jump... And I see no evidence for it. Can you provide some, please? I mean, where does your reasoning come from?

You posted this gorski on post 30. I agree that humans don't have instincts in exactly the same way as animals.

I certainly agree that to 'immediately presume' that humans are just the same as other animals is unjustified.

However, it seems just as unjustified to 'immediately presume' that we are totally different.

What is interesting is how far we do have innate drives that can be overturned.

My strong suspicion is that we have some innate drives that we can indeed rebel against, compensate for both as individuals and as cultures.

We should have nothing to fear from scientific research or the truth on this. Sure, the reductive sociobiolgy of say Watson in his recent infamous lecture and some others should be opposed both politically and because they are bad science.

On a different tack, on Habermas I don't know enough about him but from th elittle I know his version of radical democracy does seem attractive though to have really radical democracy will require a revolution.

Returrning to topic, if we have some innate qualities albeit ones we can over-ride and over-write then knowing what they are- from emprical research amongst other things- will help us overcome them, surely?

 

[Knotted]

Wiki on instincts says:

Any repeated behavior can be called "instinctual." As can any behavior for which there is a strong innate component. However, to distinguish behavior beyond the control of the organism from behavior that has a repetitive component we can turn to the book Instinct (1961) stemming from the 1960 conference. A number of criteria were established which distinguishes instinctual from other kinds of behavior. To be considered instinctual a behavior must a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable). The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behavior is not fully instinctual.

If these criteria are used in a rigorous scientific manner, application of the term "instinct" cannot be used in reference to human behavior. When terms, such as mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, and so on, are used to denote human behavior they are seen to not meet the criteria listed above. In comparison to animal behavior such as hibernation, migration, nest building, mating and so on that are clearly instinctual, no human behavior meets the necessary criteria. In other words, under this definition, there are no human instincts.

That's a very high bar to jump. I doubt there are many species with instincts under this definition. To say that humans do not have instincts counters only the more extreme sociobiological claims and furthermore it does not make humans special in some way.

Humans are good at picking up all sorts of odd habits. I would suggest that this has nothing to do with romantic notions of human culture. I doubt it is any more profound than the fact that humans are good general purpose imitators and there is little adaptive need for hard-wired instincts.

 

[Knotted]

You poor deluded sod, Knotted... Trolling helplessly, are we... As in "can't help myself"... Here's a sobering bit you managed to overlook...

Meh. Try reading a scientific paper and see if you can find any crude empiricism of this type. Science is not the idea of science, its certainly not your idea of what Bacon's idea of it was.

As I said before, "science" doesn't think. Scientists think and they think many different things.

 

[gorski]

is what I meant by smear tactics

I'm not a social Darwinist- in fact I think the misues of biological ideas in social science extremely crude, possibly dangwrous and therefore needs to be answered thoroughly not just by saying sometihng along the lines of the Nazis beleived that.

I did NOT JUST say that - I dealt with it ad nauseam throughout the thread, point by point... Really... That is utterly unfair!!

Especially since most people never bothered answering awkward questions I posed - they just blocked out that which would force them to change their "notions" [more like "pictures"]... or if they had nothing against it they just kept schtum... Not very convincing, I must say...

 

[gorski]

You posted this gorski on post 30. I agree that humans don't have instincts in exactly the same way as animals.

I certainly agree that to 'immediately presume' that humans are just the same as other animals is unjustified.

However, it seems just as unjustified to 'immediately presume' that we are totally different.

I did not say that we are TOTALLY different! We are, as I stated, living beings, with many of the corporeal needs, urges etc. that are either the same or similar.

That, however, does not mean we are absolutely the same in the sense advocated by some: "We do have instincts". We do NOT! Prove it!! And I bet you any money you and I don't have - you can't! Many serious scientists broke their teeth on it, so - indulge me, please...

We are essentially different than animals. In a variety of ways! We most certainly are NOT animals in that which makes us Human!

[Btw, this all sounds so "sound", I must say. Kinda "we are well balanced in the UK, we do not do the radical stuff, as it means revolution and we don't do revolution here...

Easy does it... ]

What is interesting is how far we do have innate drives that can be overturned.

My strong suspicion is that we have some innate drives that we can indeed rebel against, compensate for both as individuals and as cultures.

See, this is where it gets all mushy... So, instincts are the same as drives, but are they really given by birth, are they "sometimes" complex, i.e. "not learned but there" etc.? Are they the same as urges, reflexes, emotions...? Because the "slide" from one to the other and back starts there, most of the time, and then it's unmediated - from one world to the other... And I agree, as you know, it is dangerous!

Btw, I dealt with the Wiki article, if you remember, bit by bit: most of it uncritically perceived shite, no thinking allowed, especially not of the seriously questioning type. Where's the "science" in that?

We should have nothing to fear from scientific research or the truth on this. Sure, the reductive sociobiolgy of say Watson in his recent infamous lecture and some others should be opposed both politically and because they are bad science.

There is no such thing as "the truth" with no provisos, unqualified, absolute etc. Science is not value free and not outside time and space, unconnected to the observer etc.

Agreed on the other point, of course.

On a different tack, on Habermas I don't know enough about him but from th elittle I know his version of radical democracy does seem attractive though to have really radical democracy will require a revolution.

Depends - violent or not? I opt for the latter. Also, do we have the resources to stop working so hard and long? Are there enough resources to be a well off society without the idiotically obscene levels of wealth accumulated in so very few hands? I know where I stand.

Imagine the education system then. Or NHS. Or direct democracy thanx to the technological advances, for instance: telly not numbing you down but used to inform, educate, participate and change yourself and your society for the better... The same going for the web tools at our disposal etc.

Returrning to topic, if we have some innate qualities albeit ones we can over-ride and over-write then knowing what they are- from emprical research amongst other things- will help us overcome them, surely?

Nope, sorry. "Empirical" research can say fook all about these things. It can describe, at best, accurately. And that's it. The real questions are starting there, not stopping. From why did the "observer" see it like that and then understood it in certain terms onwards.... The same set of data can be explained in a variety of ways, depending on all sorts of "ingredients"...

Moreover, one can not go into any kind of research by leaving oneself on the sidelines and not having any agenda whatsoever, not bringing one's own limitations and qualities into it, especially that which we as Humans bring into it [the Kant - Hegel and onwards issues we mentioned before]!

Hope that helps in clarifying the issues and where I stand.

 

[gorski]

Scientists think and they think many different things.

Nope, they don't! Philosophers do!

 

[gorski]

Wiki on instincts says:

That's a very high bar to jump. I doubt there are many species with instincts under this definition. To say that humans do not have instincts counters only the more extreme sociobiological claims and furthermore it does not make humans special in some way.

Humans are good at picking up all sorts of odd habits. I would suggest that this has nothing to do with romantic notions of human culture. I doubt it is any more profound than the fact that humans are good general purpose imitators and there is little adaptive need for hard-wired instincts.

Well, they re-wrote the article, clearly... Well done! Better now! They were listening, after all!!!

 

[urbanrevolt]

I did not say that we are TOTALLY different! We are, as I stated, living beings, with many of the corporeal needs, urges etc. that are either the same or similar.

That, however, does not mean we are absolutely the same in the sense advocated by some: "We do have instincts". We do NOT! Prove it!! And I bet you any money you and I don't have - you can't! Many serious scientists broke their teeth on it, so - indulge me, please...

We are essentially different than animals. In a variety of ways! We most certainly are NOT animals in that which makes us Human!

[Btw, this all sounds so "sound", I must say. Kinda "we are well balanced in the UK, we do not do the radical stuff, as it means revolution and we don't do revolution here...

Easy does it... ]



See, this is where it gets all mushy... So, instincts are the same as drives, but are they really given by birth, are they "sometimes" complex, i.e. "not learned but there" etc.? Are they the same as urges, reflexes, emotions...? Because the "slide" from one to the other and back starts there, most of the time, and then it's unmediated - from one world to the other... And I agree, as you know, it is dangerous!

Btw, I dealt with the Wiki article, if you remember, bit by bit: most of it uncritically perceived shite, no thinking allowed, especially not of the seriously questioning type. Where's the "science" in that?



There is no such thing as "the truth" with no provisos, unqualified, absolute etc. Science is not value free and not outside time and space, unconnected to the observer etc.

Agreed on the other point, of course.



Depends - violent or not? I opt for the latter. Also, do we have the resources to stop working so hard and long? Are there enough resources to be a well off society without the idiotically obscene levels of wealth accumulated in so very few hands? I know where I stand.

Imagine the education system then. Or NHS. Or direct democracy thanx to the technological advances, for instance: telly not numbing you down but used to inform, educate, participate and change yourself and your society for the better... The same going for the web tools at our disposal etc.



Nope, sorry. "Empirical" research can say fook all about these things. It can describe, at best, accurately. And that's it. The real questions are starting there, not stopping. From why did the "observer" see it like that and then understood it in certain terms onwards.... The same set of data can be explained in a variety of ways, depending on all sorts of "ingredients"...

Moreover, one can not go into any kind of research by leaving oneself on the sidelines and not having any agenda whatsoever, not bringing one's own limitations and qualities into it, especially that which we as Humans bring into it [the Kant - Hegel and onwards issues we mentioned before]!

Hope that helps in clarifying the issues and where I stand.

Clarifying? Partly. I'll try and look at this again later. On empirical data though I think you are too extreme. You say it can tell us fook all- I presume you are arguing against the idea that empitrical data can tell us everything by pointing our, rightly enough, that we need different levels of explanation, that we can't explain everything by the data but need an interpretive framework etc, need to acknowledge the possibility of diverse expalanations and so on.

But to say fook all is bending it way too far- we might as well say all experimental data on human beings is completely useless and though I'm not sure you seem to be arguing something virutally indistinguishable from philosophical idealism.

Haven't got any more time now to address this.

Just as an aside on revolution- certainly don't support violent revolution would be for mass peaceful democratic change. However, the real question comes when the powers that be attack a peaceful democratic movement. I am for the right of organised self-defence.

 

[gorski]

1) But to say fook all is bending it way too far- we might as well say all experimental data on human beings is completely useless...

2) Just as an aside on revolution- certainly don't support violent revolution would be for mass peaceful democratic change. However, the real question comes when the powers that be attack a peaceful democratic movement. I am for the right of organised self-defence.

1) That's clearly taking it ad absurdum. The "distortion" lies here: you can not "just" observe, m8! Not possible for Humans! Sorry but. That's one of the myths/idiocies/ideological "foistings" of positivism and such like.

Methodologically speaking - as some of us keep holding the watch here - you can not say anything from "empirical data" if you remove all that makes you you, from your Humanity to your group particularity, to your very own individuality. The dialectics of General, Particular and Individual must be taken into consideration here!

Animals can't possibly begin to think in those terms, they don't need to... We do. We must, even! And then, we are essentially delineated from them in a variety of ways. Essentially different!

2) Yep. Seen the little booklet on "Tolerance" by Marcuse and co.? Quite interesting...

 

[urbanrevolt]

I don't really understand this gorski. You say you cannot just observe- of course I understand that we must always take account of our interpretations, of where we are but there are surely ways of observing and recording data about the physical world which mean that we can draw some tentative conclusions.

So for example we can observe how objects move under force under thousands of different cases and work out general formulas to describe it. Of course where we observe from- e.g. a moving train- can make a difference but if enough observations are recorded and general repeatable patterns emerge then we get predictions and progressive and changing models of how say physical bodies interact.

Now if we are asking about why we like particular art or literature, political or other cultural practices and behaviours then of course it is far harder and not particularly interesting to try to replicate such a scientific method- and indeed only the most reductionists would even try. Admittedly there have been such reductionists- however Dennett and Dawkins are certainly not examples of such reductionists (though Dennett may stray in that direction on occassion- certainly more than Dawkins, though even his recent book on religion was poor I think in not recognising sufficiently culture, scoiety and politics in his account).

However, there is a whole range of experimental data you seem to reject out of hand- psychological experiements on e.g. human reaction times, how the brain processes information, whether certain algorithms can be used toi help explain some human behaviours.

Now as I say no one but the most reductionists would claim that this had any but a partial role in explaining small parts of human behaviour- indeed there are such reductionists but they are quite uncommon and this thread hasn't really been about them (e.g behaviourists now almost wholly discredited I think). You however seem to be arguing another fundamentalist position that humans are not animals at all.

You say we are essentially different- in the sense I presume that we can think for ourselves, we alone out of the animal kingdom (as far as we know!) can defy our genes and create our own culture.

That does not mean though that ther can be experimental data at all on human behaviour- this seems quite an idealist and fundamentalist position.

I've not read the Marcuse book, no but may look it up especially if online.

For example, if we

 

[gorski]

So for example we can observe how objects move under force under thousands of different cases and work out general formulas to describe it. Of course where we observe from- e.g. a moving train- can make a difference but if enough observations are recorded and general repeatable patterns emerge then we get predictions and progressive and changing models of how say physical bodies interact.

OK and how far do you think you can go from gravity in terms of explaining everything in the Universe? And even that is not Absolute, btw, as it depends on a number of things, as you just pointed out, from the point of stance, where on Earth or a celestial object one is etc. etc. and we do not know that much about the Universe yet anyway, to be claiming the Absolute Stance to anything... {Even if we presume that one day we will become not limited, i.e. non-corporeal beings [angels] or maybe even Gods... [Well, since you're invoking that possibility... ]}

And even if we did, to my mind, you are missing the point here - completely. Why? Well, I propose it's because it's a kind of Philosophical thinking that drives Scientists/Positivists bonkers... Not easy to reconcile/square, indeed, as you may have seen such "observations" before in the thread...

The relationship between the "reality" and the "mere observer" is not a one way street. That stuff is covered by the Ancient Greeks: Subject runs around the Object trying to get an "accurate picture" and whatnot. Ages ago... “Adaequatio intellectus et rei”. Kant puts it on its head, his "Copernican Revolution" in thinking, when he places the Subject into the centre and the Object now is being "directed" by the Subject, Subject being the "lawgiver", as it were! Most Scientists really do NOT understand this essential point!!! Later on we have another one: Inter-Subjective paradigm. A long story one should really inform oneself about before...

Well, as Phil said, Scientists should really get nailed to those books [with some serious help at hand, I'd add!] before venturing into Philosophy... In Austria - until recently, if I'm correct - one couldn't do a PhD thesis without doing an MA in Methodology/Logics first, acquainting themselves with some elementary issues/problems in Philosophy!

Btw, we covered it before, in this very thread. Similar stuff was invoked in Human relations: reductionism to power... and then [they "imagine"] you can go into all four corners of the world and everything is easy and simple and elegant... Ahem... I cringe when I see that rubbish, sorry... It was done, with reason, in Italy when they were standing up to the religious dogma - Bruno and Galileo in Science, Machiavelli in Politics, Da Vinci in Art etc. But today?!? Are you guys really so terribly stuck you can't see any further? Or is it that this is, as some claim, becoming a second religion one can't question at all? And boy, did I see a helluvalot of that, utterly uncritical stance towards Science on this forum... If only there weren't so many books on the subject...

Now if we are asking about why we like particular art or literature, political or other cultural practices and behaviours then of course it is far harder and not particularly interesting to try to replicate such a scientific method- and indeed only the most reductionists would even try.

Indeed! [Not about "liking" so much, when one comes to politics and economics, mind...]

Admittedly there have been such reductionists- however Dennett and Dawkins are certainly not examples of such reductionists (though Dennett may stray in that direction on occassion- certainly more than Dawkins, though even his recent book on religion was poor I think in not recognising sufficiently culture, scoiety and politics in his account).

Loadsa that on this forum, sadly!!!

However, there is a whole range of experimental data you seem to reject out of hand- psychological experiements on e.g. human reaction times, how the brain processes information, whether certain algorithms can be used toi help explain some human behaviours.

Slow down, you're now jumping to conclusions, big time. As you could have seen in this and other thread [the "women and Philosophy" one, for instance] I do take into consideration good stuff of the sort all the time. But it better be good, if you know what I mean. Not gonna go for any old shite, a la Social Darwinism and such like. Positivist and similar approaches, to my mind, are a waste of time. Not "dismissed out of hand" but after some study, thanx!

As for mathematical shite used to explain that which you apparently just dismissed - well, make your mind up, m8. Do you agree with such reductionism or what? Just how much can be said, of any meaning and relevance, from a mathematical or scientific perspective, when it comes to that which is most Human, like Freedom, Love, Fairness, Justice, Beauty etc. etc.?

Now as I say no one but the most reductionists would claim that this had any but a partial role in explaining small parts of human behaviour- indeed there are such reductionists but they are quite uncommon and this thread hasn't really been about them (e.g behaviourists now almost wholly discredited I think). You however seem to be arguing another fundamentalist position that humans are not animals at all.

You bet!!! How many times do I have to write this ABC?!? We are both living beings. Corporeal etc. However, that does NOT automatically make us into animals! Essentially! Fundamentally! Please, have a look back, I really have lost the will to live right now, from this silly reductionist jumping to conclusions with 7 mile boots...

Moreover, I'm really ill, antibiotics and all, so cranky, sorry, not enough energy...

You say we are essentially different- in the sense I presume that we can think for ourselves, we alone out of the animal kingdom (as far as we know!) can defy our genes and create our own culture.

Our genes have nothing but potential for us. We are borne naked and helpless and we have to learn everything. And if those capacities are not triggered early enough and sustained, encouraged and nurtured properly we then never become Human, we remain animals regardless of our potential [see the "wolf children" saga, for instance, or the scientists who raised an ape baby together with their own etc.], which is then arrested. Yep, to be a Human means to continuously keep growing up and keep trying to become one. It's a never ending story. Unlike animals. The category of "becoming" is something one needs to study in Hegel, for example.

However, if we do get all the necessary upbringing and education and develop our potential - we've nothing to do with the animals. We are, then, essentially different. And no amount of reductionism is going to explain our Reason and Ethics, Politics, Art, Philosophy and whatnot from the simple, basic and rudimentary similarities in terms of both animals and us having some essential needs and reflexes, urges and so on. Sorry, but that is preposterous! Talk about reductionism and it's poking one in the eye and one still can't see it...

In effect, everything we are we are relationally and developmentally. And the highest need we have is that of another Human Being. That includes all sorts of things I mentioned above... Those things are NOT possible to explain or express in terms of any - however sophisticated - algorithms!!! I mean, you just dismissed "reductionism" and you're standing right in it and not just knee deep but all the way up to your neck...

That does not mean though that ther can be experimental data at all on human behaviour- this seems quite an idealist and fundamentalist position.

And even if you had it [this "experimental data" on all sorts of things, even those that are unthinkable of being collected/experimented on, because we're Human] - so what? That would be in a given society, under many specific conditions, different groups, different individuals in a certain moment in time. And then, where's our capacity to be creative? Where's Freedom? What with our capacity to be Imaginative?

Ech... Scientists and the scientifically-minded... They don't even know when they are deeply in quick sand...

 

[urbanrevolt]

In effect, everything we are we are relationally and developmentally. And the highest need we have is that of another Human Being. That includes all sorts of things I mentioned above... Those things are NOT possible to explain or express in terms of any - however sophisticated - algorithms!!!

Perhaps- but how do you know this? It seems just to be an assertion.
I am not saying everything is explainable by algorithms. I am suggesting that we cannot rule out a large part of human behaviour being so explained.
However, you seem to reject this- I am simply asking asking what grounds do you have for this?

And then, where's our capacity to be creative? Where's Freedom? What with our capacity to be Imaginative?

These are all human qualities- we can be creative and free despite being material beings.

Even if everything could be explained in detemrinist terms- a very large if and something I am far from believing- it doesn't mean we take away the value of our lives at all.

As I beleive Einstein is once meant to have commented, even if you can describe all th elhysics of producing the sounds of a Mozart concerto it doesn't tell you anything useful about the music- there are different levels of explanation. Can't find reference for this remark- though am sure I read it recently- was it on this thread?

Isn't it just there are different levels of explanation?

 

[gorski]

Perhaps- but how do you know this? It seems just to be an assertion.

Yep, after only who knows how much of Philosophical, Social, Economic and Political development of emancipatory kind and thousands of years of our yearning and struggle to achieve......

Achhhh... Yeah, right... Just an assertion, I just plucked it out of thin air [after some 27 years of studying it and being a part of a movement that worked precisely on that and even risked a bit trying to achieve it etc.] and it has nothing to do with anything... It was just sucked out of my little finger... just like that... Ech...

I am not saying everything is explainable by algorithms. I am suggesting that we cannot rule out a large part of human behaviour being so explained.

You see... You're already heavily "primed" to accept it. A safe pair of hands, a proper positivist, as it were... The "slight of hand" and a little slip this way and then that way and before you know it - it's all "natural"... the "competition" as the primary mover in Nature, so then in Human Society, also -> hence domination, exploitation, greed and destruction and whatnot are just perfectly normal and healthy, that is how "Nature" is and so...

FYI, that is something Spinoza would die for [a proof that we can explain at least a large part of that which is deeply Human via maths]...

However, you seem to reject this- I am simply asking asking what grounds do you have for this?

Let me respond like this: the very fact that you are asking such a question in such a manner, with a straight face [I presume] is seriously indicative of just how deeply this civilisation is in it... Who knows if we'll ever be able to get out of it... The "calcule" of it all...

That is what Critical Theory in some of its biggest authors used to substitute Reason for [Understanding instead of Reason, calling it "Instrumental Reason"] - this clearly "lower" capacity of ours to simply "calculate" within the merely given, the [by and large] spatial [rather than temporal] intelligence, i.e. getting to the cheese here and now, and not even want to look beyond, be creative, risk, aim higher and question... Reducing our behaviour to "calcule" is really a sign of a Scientific mind!

Where's Phil when one needs him?

These are all human qualities- we can be creative and free despite being material beings.

Not if you are going to explain "a large part of human behaviour" by ALGORITHMS!!!

Even if everything could be explained in detemrinist terms- a very large if and something I am far from believing- it doesn't mean we take away the value of our lives at all.

WOW!

I knew it... Slight of hand and before you know it - off we go to determinism... at least for "a large part of our lives"... You really haven't thought this through, have you?

As I beleive Einstein is once meant to have commented, even if you can describe all th elhysics of producing the sounds of a Mozart concerto it doesn't tell you anything useful about the music- there are different levels of explanation. Can't find reference for this remark- though am sure I read it recently- was it on this thread?

Don't think so. He said many things. But then again, he was a determinist and couldn't figure out anything outside of it...

Isn't it just there are different levels of explanation?

Sure. One is yours. Between a Marxian [say, Ernst Bloch] or Critical Theory [the development from Horkheimer/Adorno/Benjamin and co. to Habermas and co.] or Praxis Philosophy [the Zagreb School] and yours - I know which one I'm opting for and why...

 

[Knotted]

Nope, they don't! Philosophers do!

Erm gorski, you've slipped into a narcissistic fantasy again. Come on moment of self-awareness, where are you?