We are programmed to believe

[Hobbes' Choice]

I can't even imagine how 'studies' could go about determining such a thing. You might as well say we are 'hard-wired' to believe whatever our parents tell us at a young age--something that is fairly obvious. Or that we are 'hard-wired' to follow authority figures. To say that studies have proven we are 'hard-wired' to believe in a particular 'god' is mischievous bullshit.

Kids learn from mimicry. This is particularly true long before they develop their rational cognition. We all grow up absorbing the culture. Most of it taken and unregistered facts of reality. This becomes a series of endemic assumptions about the world, which are taken in uncritically. Not all are encouraged to learn out to be critical and to challenge this often dangerous prejudices.

In a world were the notion of racial equality never existed, racial prejudice tends to come replete with a collection of rationalisations as to why people who look different are either dangerous, inferior or untrustworthy.
Most often these tendencies latch on to innate survival mechanisms of suspicion and natural xenophobia.

It takes reason to brake these assumptions.

So, yes, we are hard-wired to follow the strong, but also to recognise weakness and bring a challenge where possible. Psychologists are on hand to design Party Political Conferences to show strength.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Cognitive neuroscience is a mature science with a rigorous methodology and one in which I am well schooled. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that ANY of our cognitive processes are neurologically hard-wired. Everything that goes in our heads is something which we've LEARNED. Inglorious is ingloriously full of shit.

This is overstated.

Every single human being has a dedicated area of the brain without which facial recognition would be impossible.
The relationship between the amigdala and the frontal cortext governs our violence/inhibition.
The brain is not a tabula rasa, but specific areas are dedicated to a range of specific functions to store information and to guide our senses and motivations.
Each new born "Knows" what a nipple is for and is perfectly aware of how to find one.
Babies do not have to learn that crawling over a cliff might be dangerous.

Although humans are less hard-wired that most other mammals they still have tendencies that neurology and psychology are unpacking as innate tendencies due to cerebral structure, and the presence of hormones.

The idea that there might be a 'god gene' I would suggest is a gene carried by those destined by nature to be the weak minded followers, and is a modification of a 'father recognition' tendancy. At some point after agriculturalisation, when humanity needed weak monded people to toil in the fields for the Boss, this gene became an advantage to have. With it the hierarchy of leaders were able to corral thousands of willing workers who would die for the god-head and worship the Bull Skulls of ancient Catal Hayuk.

[Skip]

Each new born "Knows" what a nipple is for and is perfectly aware of how to find one.

I must demur on these statements. A newborn animal (the ones I've actually seen in action most frequently are puppies and kittens; fewer kids, foals, squirrels and human infants) doesn't "know" what it's looking for. It's driven by instinct to keep butting at the nearest large warm object and snuffle about with its puckered mouth until milk starts flowing in. The human and foal have their eyes open, but are not good at focussing yet. They couldn't tell the mother from a fuzzy towel or a real live nipple from a rubber one. There is no cognitive function being exhibited; if food is not within range, they'll crawl about in circles, mewling and utterly helpless.

Babies do not have to learn that crawling over a cliff might be dangerous.

Yes, they do - and it takes a surprisingly long time. A baby would crawl right off - many have. Even up to the age of three or four years, they must be physically restrained from walking into traffic, rivers, canyons, stairwells, railroad crossings and lion-dens. Not only do they lack an instinctive fear of dangerous places, they're not even smart enough to understand when they're told why they must not go there. A simple, dramatic audio deterrent may work - then again, it may not, because (like dogs) their attention is too easily concentrated on a desired object or destination to the exclusion of all external stimuli. That's why they need leashes, or to be held by the hand.

The idea that there might be a 'god gene' I would suggest is a gene carried by those destined by nature to be the weak minded followers, and is a modification of a 'father recognition' tendancy. At some point after agriculturalisation, when humanity needed weak minded people to toil in the fields for the Boss, this gene became an advantage to have.

Maybe... But how is it a biological or social advantage to the exploited to be exploitable? Wouldn't you expect that the exploiter males fathered more children, both within their own classes and among the toilers, serfs and slaves? I hear Genghis Kahn had six thousand - give or take - offspring. I would expect all of them had his aggressive genes, alongside the victim genes of their mothers. Now, the aggressor gene might be diluted if the next several generations didn't get an infusion of Overlord semen, but that would mean the follower types were already in the majority - and quite a large majority - even before civilization made it a prerequisite. The same thing happens in every war of conquest, on ever tea plantation, in every sweat-shop, where the exploiter has a huge, unopposed sexual advantage. So how do the weak-minded, follower types increase to the billions, with no sign of a shift in the tendency to follow - and no appreciable change in the percentage of sociopaths at the top?

Seems to me there is something other than pre-programming at work here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

.. like a band-aid on a severed head.'

Perfect analogy lol.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Each new born "Knows" what a nipple is for and is perfectly aware of how to find one.

I must demur on these statements. A newborn animal (the ones I've actually seen in action most frequently are puppies and kittens; fewer kids, foals, squirrels and human infants) doesn't "know" what it's looking for. It's driven by instinct to keep butting at the nearest large warm object and snuffle about with its puckered mouth until milk starts flowing in. The human and foal have their eyes open, but are not good at focussing yet. They couldn't tell the mother from a fuzzy towel or a real live nipple from a rubber one. There is no cognitive function being exhibited; if food is not within range, they'll crawl about in circles, mewling and utterly helpless.

Babies do not have to learn that crawling over a cliff might be dangerous.

Yes, they do - and it takes a surprisingly long time. A baby would crawl right off - many have. Even up to the age of three or four years, they must be physically restrained from walking into traffic, rivers, canyons, stairwells, railroad crossings and lion-dens. Not only do they lack an instinctive fear of dangerous places, they're not even smart enough to understand when they're told why they must not go there. A simple, dramatic audio deterrent may work - then again, it may not, because (like dogs) their attention is too easily concentrated on a desired object or destination to the exclusion of all external stimuli. That's why they need leashes, or to be held by the hand.

The idea that there might be a 'god gene' I would suggest is a gene carried by those destined by nature to be the weak minded followers, and is a modification of a 'father recognition' tendancy. At some point after agriculturalisation, when humanity needed weak minded people to toil in the fields for the Boss, this gene became an advantage to have.

Maybe... But how is it a biological or social advantage to the exploited to be exploitable? Wouldn't you expect that the exploiter males fathered more children, both within their own classes and among the toilers, serfs and slaves? I hear Genghis Kahn had six thousand - give or take - offspring. I would expect all of them had his aggressive genes, alongside the victim genes of their mothers. Now, the aggressor gene might be diluted if the next several generations didn't get an infusion of Overlord semen, but that would mean the follower types were already in the majority - and quite a large majority - even before civilization made it a prerequisite. The same thing happens in every war of conquest, on ever tea plantation, in every sweat-shop, where the exploiter has a huge, unopposed sexual advantage. So how do the weak-minded, follower types increase to the billions, with no sign of a shift in the tendency to follow - and no appreciable change in the percentage of sociopaths at the top?

Seems to me there is something other than pre-programming at work here.

I see you ignored the other points in my post.
I'll take it you have no answer to that.

But even the way you describe the puppy finding a nipple implies knowledge. A foal knows how to run within 24 hours, this cannot be explained by learning. It also "knows" to run. There is no possible way to 'learn' that a predator is dangerous. Each young deer has to 'know' that.
Babies DO know about the danger of falling. All primates are born with this mechanism; but human babies can loose it.

But how is it a biological or social advantage to the exploited to be exploitable? Wouldn't you expect that the exploiter males fathered more children, both within their own classes and among the toilers, serfs and slaves? I hear Genghis Kahn had six thousand - give or take - offspring. I would expect all of them had his aggressive genes, alongside the victim genes of their mothers.

You have the idea of natural selection backwards. This is a common enough fault.
The attempt to build a society of willing serfs requires that the masses need to be subservient. Thus as this society develops only those class of surfs are 'selected'. Dissident voices, or aggressive genes fill the ranks of the army. Over time the classes become castes.
And there is no reason why exploiter males would father more children. Humans tend to marry and have monogamous relationships. But there is a tendency that spare sons of the Lords have always tended to form warrior parties to form new colonies elsewhere and enslave other settlements. So I don't get your objection.

Myths about Ghengis Khan do not count as evidence.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

In a world were the notion of racial equality never existed, racial prejudice tends to come replete with a collection of rationalisations as to why people who look different are either dangerous, inferior or untrustworthy. Most often these tendencies latch on to innate survival mechanisms of suspicion and natural xenophobia.

It takes reason to brake these assumptions.

But it is quite a bit more than 'reason', it is in fact ideology.

In a world where no ideology of 'racial equality' existed - and the modern notion of racial equality is an ideological construct - there would be no brake at all on the tendency, clearly evinced, of a better-advantaged group to use all advantages at its disposal to dominate others and all others if possible. The 'rationalisations' arose only to explain an operational and enacted 'superiority' and later, when the facts of domination were challenged, the ideological rationalisations to oppose domination came on the scene.

Differences in nature mark the boundaries between species and are natural and necessary. The differences demarked are always real and never non-substantial. If one subscribes to that theory one is logically-bound to carry it forward to its conclusions. If physical difference exists in human community, it likely arises from similar determinants and therefor can be considered normal and natural. For one group to notice difference, and to rally against the difference-markers, whether because of suspicion, fear, or any other reason, is quite a bit less than an 'ideological construct'. It may only be a power-play at the most non-ideological level, and one of straight power principles.

According to the logic of the argument you present, racial prejudice must be respected and taken as a real thing, dealing on real factors. There is no reason at all to see an 'ideological overlay' as being either true or real nor necessary to respect. If survival mechanisms are 'innate' they are natural and good.

The idea that there might be a 'god gene' I would suggest is a gene carried by those destined by nature to be the weak minded followers, and is a modification of a 'father recognition' tendancy. At some point after agriculturalisation, when humanity needed weak monded people to toil in the fields for the Boss, this gene became an advantage to have. With it the hierarchy of leaders were able to corral thousands of willing workers who would die for the god-head and worship the Bull Skulls of ancient Catal Hayuk.

Guten Morgen lieber Doktor Marx!

[Skip]

I see you ignored the other points in my post.

I didn't have any problem with them; they were not contrary to my own observations. Non-comment is agreement, not lack of an answer.

But even the way you describe the puppy finding a nipple implies knowledge. A foal knows how to run within 24 hours, this cannot be explained by learning. It also "knows" to run.

Of course, there is 'inherited knowledge', or instinct, which is passed on from one generation to the next, even as species mutate into ever-more complex species. The quest for nourishment is one The first bacterium figured it out and passed it on to all its fissioned progeny, and we still have that same life instinct. The same goes for those parts of the brain that control physical functions. The autonomous ones, we're not even aware of (until they malfunction); the voluntary ones, we have to test and train and teach new skills. Everybody's born knowing how to breathe and excrete, but watch a newborn figure out how to get its fingers into its mouth (They've been practicing for three months in utero, but when the body position changes - expands in the wider outside world - they have to learn it all over again. The foal has to figure out how to control its legs before it can run. Running is a simple task: requires more autonomic functions than learned skills. Large herbivores learn it faster than humans - in hours, rather than months - because they're born with more developed bones and muscles. Human babies could figure out the function, but haven't the skeletal or muscular strength.

There is no possible way to 'learn' that a predator is dangerous. Each young deer has to 'know' that.

There is the mistake! The way they learn that something is dangerous is by example. If the mother runs, they run with her; they won't run away on their own. They do not know what a predator is. If the nearest warn body to newborn fawn were a wolf, it would go to the wolf and butt its side, seeking a nipple. They can be imprinted on a goat or a human or whatever feeds them. That's why so many unusual pairings happen in captivity: it's not unusual for a dog to raise baby animals that should be afraid of canines, but don't know it. https://www.google.ca/search?q=dogs+rai ... 59&bih=690

Babies DO know about the danger of falling. All primates are born with this mechanism; but human babies can loose it.

Fear of falling doesn't translate to an understanding of things you can fall off of. They clutch at whatever - air, hair, bedclothes - when they're already falling or losing their balance: that's automatic and instinctive. They do not recognize cliffs, top of the stairs, edge of the bed, windowsill or any of the other things babies routinely do crawl to and off.

You have the idea of natural selection backwards. This is a common enough fault.
The attempt to build a society of willing serfs requires that the masses need to be subservient. Thus as this society develops only those class of surfs are 'selected'.

By whom? Through what process? If you eliminate the mechanism of strong men screwing all available women, what selection process is left? Monogamy is all fine and well - and recent! - less than 100 generations and even today, not in all cultures. Nor did it ever limit the fecundity of caliphs and chieftains, popes and dukes, sheiks and plantation owners. Castes certainly exist, but they're enforced by social rules - often a spear- or gun-point - not genetic predisposition. And, of course, all of that reproductive regulation goes out the window during war - of which there have been many - and mass migration.

Myths about Ghengis Khan do not count as evidence.

The fact of aggressive males persists. http://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan ... on-1.16767

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no possible way to 'learn' that a predator is dangerous. Each young deer has to 'know' that.

There is the mistake! The way they learn that something is dangerous is by example. If the mother runs, they run with her; they won't run away on their own.

NAH.There is no way any species can LEARN to fear a predator. The only animals without an innate flight response are nothing more than FOOD.

[Skip]

OK. Red print trumps life observation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

OK. Red print trumps life observation.

Oh excuse my Mr. Lion 0 are you a danger to me or not???

Come here my pretty dear! and I'll show you.

Chomp.