Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:27 am

The Woodster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:15 pm Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic. Some are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf
So to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

Thank you!

I know that this is plainly obvious and does not need mentioning, but just to make it obviously clear, just because some one agrees with you, that does not make what is being proposed true nor right at all.

And just because you disagree with two people does not make you right.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:23 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:15 pm Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic.

So when did greed come into existence?

Do genes only make human beings greedy or do genes affect other animals this way also?
If yes, then which other animals, and if only some animals, then why only those ones and not the other ones?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:15 pmSome are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf

And what actual evidence do you have for this claim?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:15 pmSo to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

Based upon what fact exactly?

Greed is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated.

If that is your definition for the word 'greed', then so be it. But to me it is a very limited definition to some thing I find far more diverse. I wonder how many people agree with you that 'greed' is associated with eating only?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amThis has powerful selective advantage. And it has been part of animal behaviour for millions of years.

Were dinosaurs greedy also, or did greed not come into existence until after them?

Who or what exactly does being greedy have powerful selective advantage for?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amEvolution is a balancing act, never perfect and always variable.

Evolution is never perfect in relation to what exactly?

Considering evolution could not be any different from what it is I have yet to see how it could never be perfect.

Would not an evolving Self-reslising and Self-explaining Consciousness be some sort of proof that evolution is working perfectly?

How is evolution supposedly variable?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amEvidence for these and many more variations in individuals are all around you. Just look.

I am, and I certainly not seeing what you see.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amLabrador dogs are notorious in that they will eat until they are sick or incapable of movement, whilst other breeds of dog are more fussy. Some dogs are born homosexual, whilst others are straight.

So, you named one breed of one particular animal that overeat some times. Are you proposing that that is evidence for some thing?

Which dogs are born homosexual, and what evidence do you have that they are born that way?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amYou can take it that "greed" is a pejorative and moralistic term. It is a judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a natural trait.

So, for all of those animals, and breeds of dogs, that do not eat as much as they can are you saying that they are not greedy, and, that the only things greedy in the Universe, which you know of, are human beings and labradors. Is this correct?

If no, then please correct it.

Also, how many human beings do you propose are greedy, if 'greed' just is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amThe trait is natural, but the judgement is cultural.

Are you now saying that the behaviour to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated, is a natural trait but the behaviour to judge how much you eat is a learned or cultural trait?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:27 am

The Woodster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:22 pm

Thank you!

I know that this is plainly obvious and does not need mentioning, but just to make it obviously clear, just because some one agrees with you, that does not make what is being proposed true nor right at all.

And just because you disagree with two people does not make you right.

Have I said any thing that is wrong?

If yes, then what do you propose that is exactly?

Give it up Age, there is enormous scientific literature on the complex relations between appetite and genetics. You can find as much as you could ever want to read via Goggle.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?st ... 5&as_vis=1

Neither you nor Woodster has the slightest understanding of this stuff, watching the pair of you argue about it is just sad.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:37 pm The reason no one has ever satisfactorily solved this conundrum before is the simple fact, which no one has ever realised, is that this world in which we all live, should never have existed at all. Something in our past went hideously wrong and created this twisted reality.

Rubbish. The belief that existence itself is somehow good, somehow benevolent, seems to be very deeply wired into us (and even into some other animals, on a very rudimentary level), but it turns out to be wrong.

When you are looking for an explanation of human life, you have to accept that probably nothing went wrong in the past, unfortunately everything as it "should be".

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:05 pm Give it up Age, there is enormous scientific literature on the complex relations between appetite and genetics.

What has the extremely simplly understood relationship between appetite and genetics got to do with 'greed' itself?

Maybe you would like to fill us in on how you define the word 'greed'?

Are you at all aware that I have been discussing 'greed' here? Your response does not seem to show that you understand what I have been saying.

To make it known beforehand, if you do provide a definition for the word 'greed', then it will become quite clear and obvious how you are just "trying to justify" your own wrong behaviours.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:05 pmYou can find as much as you could ever want to read via Goggle.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?st ... 5&as_vis=1

Neither you nor Woodster has the slightest understanding of this stuff, watching the pair of you argue about it is just sad.

Well you sound like you want it known that you know all about about this "stuff", so why do you not fill us in with exactly what is true, right, and correct?

Also, and again, you do not even seem to have much understanding at all about what I am actually talking about here.

If you want to disagree with what I said, then point out what I said, reply to that part, and express what the actual truth is, from your perspective.

Continuing to say things like you have here now shows nothing more than you have not understood what I have talked about. You certainly have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

x

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:47 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:05 pm Give it up Age, there is enormous scientific literature on the complex relations between appetite and genetics.

What has the extremely simplly understood relationship between appetite and genetics got to do with 'greed' itself?

Maybe you would like to fill us in on how you define the word 'greed'?

You're making me yawn and I'm not going to do a lot of this with you Age.

You won't find any academic study of 'greed' because that isn't a scientific term. The relevant terms are satiety and appetite. These are the factors that a clinical researcher will study, and then a tabloid will relate a summary of their findings for you with the scientific terms replaced by normative ones such as "greed". I've given you a link to a great many scientific papers covering links between genetic inheritance and appetitive behaviours, they all have an abstract at the start which will usually explain the gist of the findings in quite straight forward terms. The ball is in your court to follow some links and acquire some learning if you actually care.

I really don't care if that satiates your appetite for kowledge. I've seen your output, your response will typically be another sliver of indignation, which I also won't care about.

x

x

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:32 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:23 am

So when did greed come into existence?

Do genes only make human beings greedy or do genes affect other animals this way also?
If yes, then which other animals, and if only some animals, then why only those ones and not the other ones?



And what actual evidence do you have for this claim?



Based upon what fact exactly?

Greed is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated.

If that is your definition for the word 'greed', then so be it. But to me it is a very limited definition to some thing I find far more diverse. I wonder how many people agree with you that 'greed' is associated with eating only?

I never said that. If you can't argue without creating strawmen then you might want to go elsewhere.
My argument does not rely on a narrow definition.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amThis has powerful selective advantage. And it has been part of animal behaviour for millions of years.

Were dinosaurs greedy also, or did greed not come into existence until after them?

"millions of years" would include dinosaurs too.
Check your facts.

Who or what exactly does being greedy have powerful selective advantage for?

Already explained

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amEvolution is a balancing act, never perfect and always variable.

Evolution is never perfect in relation to what exactly?

Open a book. I suggest you start with Darwin

Considering evolution could not be any different from what it is I have yet to see how it could never be perfect.

Duh!Open a book! Nothing's perfect.

Would not an evolving Self-reslising and Self-explaining Consciousness be some sort of proof that evolution is working perfectly?

depends. Depends on whether or not that is selectively advantageous.

How is evolution supposedly variable?

Duh!Open a book! It relies on variation

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amEvidence for these and many more variations in individuals are all around you. Just look.

I am, and I certainly not seeing what you see.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amLabrador dogs are notorious in that they will eat until they are sick or incapable of movement, whilst other breeds of dog are more fussy. Some dogs are born homosexual, whilst others are straight.

So, you named one breed of one particular animal that overeat some times. Are you proposing that that is evidence for some thing?

You are a time waster.

Which dogs are born homosexual, and what evidence do you have that they are born that way?

All mammals exhibit homosexuality. You need to get out more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amYou can take it that "greed" is a pejorative and moralistic term. It is a judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a natural trait.

So, for all of those animals, and breeds of dogs, that do not eat as much as they can are you saying that they are not greedy, and, that the only things greedy in the Universe, which you know of, are human beings and labradors. Is this correct?

If no, then please correct it.

Also, how many human beings do you propose are greedy, if 'greed' just is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:25 amThe trait is natural, but the judgement is cultural.

Are you now saying that the behaviour to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated, is a natural trait but the behaviour to judge how much you eat is a learned or cultural trait?

You are confusing two issues. One is the trait and the other is the cultural judgement that people place upon it. Please try to stick to the program
You are either totally dull or just game playing. I think it is the former.

x

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pm My facts come from web site "Homo Sapiens; Child of the Ice-Age" - excerpt follows;

The human population “bottleneck”
Beginning 195,000 years ago, the global climate entered a period of cold and dry conditions that lasted for 70,000 years, a phase called Marine Isotope Stage 6. In interior Africa, this shift triggered drought conditions so severe that much of the continent would have become uninhabitable. Genetic studies of modern human DNA tell us that at some point during this period, human populations plummeted from more than 10,000 breeding individuals to as few as 600.

What actual thing in DNA provides figures for the number of a species, at any given time?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmHomo sapiens became a highly endangered species; we almost went extinct. This “population bottleneck” means that all humans alive today are descended from this tiny group of survivors.

And that, to you, "tiny group" descended from other things.

See where you think we are disagreeing is that you, and the "others" here in this forum as well, look at things from a separatist and narrow perspective of things, whereas I do not see any actual separation, and thus look at EVERY thing in continuum. For example, you say that all humans alive today are descended from a "tiny group of survivors". Whereas I would say that all human beings alive today are descendents.

To me there is no separation in evolution. Evolution just does what it does eternally.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmThe result: our species has less genetic diversity than a single troupe of West Africa chimpanzees.

So what?

Your species and any chimpanzee are still descendents, with NO starting point.

Just because your species has less genetic diversity does not imply that there is any "greed-gene".

The question in doubt here is whether there is "greed-gene" or not. You, and "others", believe there is. I am waiting for you, or "them", to provide such evidence.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmThis is the period i refer to has having been 'endured' by homo-sapiens.

I know that the period in which you refer to as having been "endured". It would be quite obvious that I am well aware of this especially considering what I wrote in reply to your use of the "endure", which by the way I asked you to clarify, which obviously you have not yet, and instead just re-repeated what you have earlier said.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmI believe that during this period we had to evolve the emotion of greed,in order to survive. Your species and any chimpanzee are still descendents.

Why do you believe this?

What actual evidence is there that the emotion of greed just suddenly evolved in human beings, in order for them to survive?

How did the species survive, which human beings evolved from, if the emotion of greed did not exist previously?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmNot just the urge to stuff our mouths with food, but also the urge to accumulate goods, fire-wood, clothing,tools etc.

Some groups of human beings today, when this is written, still do not need to accumulate goods, of any sort, in order to survive. And they evolved from the exact same.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmMore possessions=better chance of survival. Once greed evolved, it was with us for ever, and led to this world in which we now live.

Which definition of the word "greed" are using here now?

To me, you are just trying to fit things in with what suits your already held beliefs. For example, you believe that human beings should already be living in peace and harmony and because you are not, you are trying to find explanations for why you are not yet.

I have already explained why you are are not, YET, living that way.

You are also "trying to justify" greed, which, by the way, only furthers the life that you are living in now, when this is written.

I have explained previously that in order to live in the "world" that you want, you need to find out why you do the wrong that you do do, and not vtry to justify' the wrong that you do do.like you are doing now.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmMy point being that if homo-sapiens had not suffered this 70,000 years, our species would not have needed to evolve the emotion of greed, and we would have become a completely different human-race, and the world too would have been completely different.

I KNOW what your point is. What you are saying is very clear and understood. I am just learning ways to get you to fathom fully where and why you are wrong.

Can you not yet so that you do not have any actual evidence for what you are saying here, and that you have just arrived at some conclusions, which to me are obviously unsubstantiated, solely based upon your previously held beliefs only?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:56 pmBut looking back at human history we can see that greed, the survival instinct to accumulate goods, has shaped every civilisation on Earth.

Seeing what greed is causing I would suggest speaks for itself.

Calling greed a survival instinct is, to me anyway, obviously what is exasperating this issue tremendously.

But who am I to suggest any thing? According to most here I am just plain wrong, dull, idiotic, and/or insane anyway.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:47 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:05 pm Give it up Age, there is enormous scientific literature on the complex relations between appetite and genetics.

What has the extremely simplly understood relationship between appetite and genetics got to do with 'greed' itself?

Maybe you would like to fill us in on how you define the word 'greed'?

You're making me yawn and I'm not going to do a lot of this with you Age.

Maybe you might be better off sleeping more, or if you are bored then maybe it might be somewhat due to all of that extremely monotonous academic literature that you read. But if you are yawning because of what I write, then I would suggest if you do not like it, then do not read it. Life really is quite that simple and easy.

You say you are not going to do a lot of "it" with me, the truth of that will soon be seen.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pmYou won't find any academic study of 'greed' because that isn't a scientific term.

Who cares?

I do not want academic study of 'greed'. I already know and understand 'greed'. I see what greed causes everyday when I look at what human beings do and have done.

I do not need writings to show me the destruction that you human beings can and have caused already.

By the way have you forgotten that it was I that was literally putting into question the so called "greed-gene?"

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pmThe relevant terms are satiety and appetite.

'Relevant' to what exactly?

Eating and feeling satisfied? If yes, then that has just about nothing at all to do with what I have been talking about. Are you at all aware of this fact?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pmThese are the factors that a clinical researcher will study, and then a tabloid will relate a summary of their findings for you with the scientific terms replaced by normative ones such as "greed".

Who cares?

None of this has anything to do with what I have been talking about.

Continually diverting away from what I start questioning, towards what you want to look at and talk about is of no importance to me.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pm I've given you a link to a great many scientific papers covering links between genetic inheritance and appetitive behaviours, they all have an abstract at the start which will usually explain the gist of the findings in quite straight forward terms.

Who cares here how much an individual human being wants to eat?

I certainly do not.

I also do not really care here about how much human beings, themselves, want to eat. I was never discussing that issue here.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pm The ball is in your court to follow some links and acquire some learning if you actually care.

Okay, so the "ball" is in my court now. Thank you for the serve.

Just to let you know I do not care what you human beings eat. I am not discussing that with anyone here.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pmI really don't care if that satiates your appetite for kowledge. I've seen your output, your response will typically be another sliver of indignation, which I also won't care about.

If that is what you believe you will get, then obviously that is what you will get.

You would not believe some thing if it were not true, would you?

By the way I hope you care enough to be able to at least try to understand what it is that I am talking about, instead of not caring enough that you can not even follow what I have been saying here.

I was discussing, with another, about an alleged existing so called "greed-gene", and not much at all about what you are talking about here.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pm 2. What do you mean by 'standard' method of evolution?
How many methods of evolution is there? And, how do you separate the standard methods of evolution from the non-standard methods.

What i mean is that evolution's standard method for the last 3.5 billion years has been the same with each species, Survival of the fittest.

Okay,
1. If evolution has been the same with each species, then how could there be an error with human beings, and with them only?
2. Again, is there any other method than the "standard" method?
3. Why has evolution only been the same with each species for the last 3.5 billion years? Was it different before that? Why did evolution start or change 3.5 billion years ago?

Direct straightforward answers would be much appreciated.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmThis however no longer applies to the human race - evolution's method no longer works with us.

Why do some human beings, like yourself, believe that human beings are above, beyond, or not a part of evolutionary and/or nature?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmIf for instance an animal is born lame, or blind, or has some form of disfigurement that severely effects it's ability to survive, the chances are that it will not live long enough to mate.

Does the obviousness of this really need to be said here?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pm It's inferior genes will therefore not be passed on to any further generation, and its bloodline will end there and then.

So what?

And again, do you really believe that some thing as so obvious as this needs to be said here?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmThis however would never happen to homo-sapiens.With us being intelligent emotional and social animals, the weak and disabled will be taken care of, and reach an age when they are able to procreate, thereby ensuring that their "inferior"genes will also be passed on and inherited by their offspring. Human males born smaller or weaker than average will also still be able to procreate, and unless all the average sized males ganged up on them and forbid them all to ever shag a woman, then they too will pass on their "inferior,smaller " genes.

Once again all rather obvious.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pm When the ice-age evolved/ or didn't evolve the psychopath, these too will have continued to pass on their "warrior-genes" (the so-called warrior gene comprises particular variations in the X chromosome gene that produces monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), an enzyme that affects the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin)

You have to first provide evidence for a "warrior-gene" and/or a "greed-gene" BEFORE you can start discussing these "genes" being passed on.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmEvolution cannot prevent this from happening, and these evolutionary throw-backs are still born today, even though they are mostly anti-social, and ideally we would be better off as a species without them.

To me, obviously the "world" would be a much better place if human beings were not "warrior-like" and/or "greedy-like", but that still does not mean that there are "warrior" or "greed" genes in existence.

To me, it is really very simple.

Warring and being greedy are behaviors. All behaviors come from thoughts. Thoughts are invisible, and the invisible is not directly affected genetically. Thoughts are gained 'along the way'. Thoughts are not some thing human beings are born with.

If human beings have learned to be "warrior-like" or "greedy", then that is just because they have learned to be that way. All behaviors are learned, which, by the way, can also be very easily 'unlearned' (for lack of a better word here now).

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmThis is what i mean when i say that evolution no longer works in its age-old method, in the human-race.

Well, to me, it appears to be a very missed way of explaining.

Correct me if I have you wrong here, but are you saying that evolution has been around for only 3.5 billion years and has worked the exact same way with every species but at some point, roughly 190,000 years ago hitherto, the same method that evolution worked by changed, but only changed in human beings?

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pmWe are the first species where evolution cannot maintain a uniformly, mostly identical creature.

To me, dogs look more diverse than human beings do.

To me, things like dogs, cats, chickens appear to be far less identical creatures than human beings are. The diverse sizes and shapes in some animals appear for more varying, to me, than the variance in the human animal. But then again I do see things differently than most human beings like you do.

The Woodster wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 pm We are too diverse, unlike every other species on earth where every individual creature is 'mostly' the same as all the others of its kind.

Was it, or was it not, you that was talking about how a horse used to be the size of a mouse once?

To me, the human being creature is 'more' the same than that mouse-horse creature is. But maybe this is not what you are talking about here.

To me, what has appeared to change the 'most' is the behavior in the human being creature.

To me, the human being creature's behavior has radically changed 'mostly' compared to every other known creature.

To me, the behavior of the human being creature has changed tremendously, and the genes have not changed that much at all. This is because, to me, the human being creature is the only one with real 'intelligence'. All other creatures have remained relatively the exact same behavioral wise since their inception into existence. However, when the human being came into existence, then that is when things really changed, behaviorally.