When a concept is considered, the considerations should include an identification and examination of the different elements which, when combined, constitute the concept's existence. In other words, if we want to know as much as we can about a subject, then we must gain a correct understanding of all of it's parts. The success of the actual understanding of a concept depends upon the success of the individual understandings of each element of that concept.

The evidence regarding the importance of this notion has been displayed throughout mankind's existence. Attributing false cause to an observed effect can, and often has, resulted in devastating effects on future human developmental knowledge. For when a severe form of misdiagnosis attains the false virtue of being true within that society, then the shared misunderstanding can become grounds for an entire civilization to possess an illusion of understanding which increases with each additional piece of "knowledge" also based upon that falsehood.

I have reason to believe that the pursuit of our understanding regarding human nature and behaviour has been largely founded upon the false dilemma of "free will" vs. determinism. This debate has undoubtedly shaped the foundational understanding while simultaneously excluding other existential elements.

The deeply held belief that humans possess the inherent ability to "freely" choose that which they want to choose without external constraint factors, otherwise known as "free will", has been pitted against determinism. Determinism, in it's elementary form, claims that all choice is influenced and determined by something, and therefore is not "free".

In fact, modern biology and neuroscience has shown that the act of choosing is itself a physiological process which displays an observable "thought-print" throughout the areas of the brain which are used. The same areas, regardless of species, are used when an animal makes a choice. In animals which are known to "think" about their choices, other areas and brain features which are shared are involved as well. In self-aware and thinking beings, choice is made by an individual according to what that individual wants or needs. The function being expectation based upon what that individual forsees as the possible consequence(s) for that choice.

As I see it, the problem with the focus of human nature and behaviour being built around and therefore grounded upon the "Free Will" vs. Determinism debate is three-fold...

It assumes that both are independent of one another.

It assumes that it must be one or the other, or some slight variation.

Most importantly, neither one embraces the random element of pure chance.

There is no such thing as a coincidence. It is not one that I want to enjoy life. It is also not one that I want to do it without bringing harm to anyone else!

I used to believe that all things happen for a reason. I also presupposed that the reason had a purpose.

Now I just believe that all things happen for a reason.



One example...

Drunk drivers kill other drivers frequently....

I prefer to think that the drivers who were killed were just a causal victim of the drunk drivers choice(s)...

Nothing more...

Nothing less...

Pure random chance.

I tend to agree Creative, I am your choir sir keep a preachin!

Question regarding
Was that written as intended? i.e. "causal" and not "casual"?

Sky...

Howzit brah? You asked...



Yup! Perhaps not using the most common definition... ...but none-the-less,

Yup!

I was just trying to get a handle on your meaning. Like how a "causal victim" would be different from any other kind of victim. Would an "effectual victim" be the opposite of a "causal victim"? Just trying to understand.

Sky...

Stemming from a cause...

Yup, I coulda just said victim...

Ok, thanks

Human nature, vs human behaviour....


Which humans?

Where might we be looking, when considering this concept?

Are we observing the general masses of westernised societies, or tribal/natural, 'organic' societies?



(You know how human behaviour fascinates me Michael, so this topic holds a deep interest with me)

Yes I agree with Jess lets get specific! Toss us a curve ball CS!

Of course, I am not an educated expert er nuttin', but I just like learnin' stuff...

Human nature is displayed by human behaviour everywhere. The differences in behaviours often result from differences in environmental influence(s) and knowledge base(experience). They can also result from genetics. The common threads are what display what is the nature. There are genetic, environmental, and chance factors which continue to shape us, our views, and our choices as people throughout our lives.

Any parent with more than one child knows that children are born as individuals with unique personality traits, talents, and behaviours which cannot be attributed to anything but genetics. Judgemental biases however, are almost always inherently a product of environment. People are not born with morals intact. The sense of ought is learned.

The blank slate doctrine which has been largely supported throughout much of the last century claims that a child's mind is a blank slate, and therefore, whether the child grows up to be a murderer or a saint, either outcome was either mostly or completely determined by the childhood and life. The blank slate was the doctrine used to gain enough support to warrant hideous amounts of governmental funding to do such things as the rehabilitation of violent offenders. That has been proven to be nearly impossible and has been revisited. Someone cannot just unlearn features of their personality that they do not even know exist.

While what is in our nature is almost impossible to know completely, our behaviour has been studied very carefully in an effort to assess the validity of this thinking that has dominated Western societies for far too long. More recent developments in the sciences, especially neuroscience, have been able to effectively show with studies of identical twins, fraternal twins, biological, and non-biological siblings that the effects of parenting styles and belief play a very small role in who the child becomes.

In other words, children are not a piece of silly putty that parents and an environment can mold and shape however they choose into whatever they choose. There are other factors which weigh as heavily if not more heavily than just how a child is raised. Of course, this is not taking into consideration severe forms of neglect and abuse.

Speaking of abuse could lead us to one focus issue, namely...violence.

It is a commonly held belief that violence is a learned behaviour. Whereas, I would venture to say that it is not a learned behaviour. Rather, it is one that we, as humans, have to unlearn. We too often have to explain to a child why it is not ok to hit, bite, or kick. People do not need to go to school or be taught how to breath, eat, sleep, or want. It is the want that leads one to the perfectly logical conclusion to eliminate the competition with force.

I fear that humans have long asked the wrong questions...

I agree I think violence for the most part is a function of our ability to control the reptile instinct of rage. When I say "our" I mean the human race.

But there are factors that can have a contributing influence. Stress plays a role this can be shown with many people and has been demonstrated in the studies indicated in the link below (Which is the ted talks video on good and evil I posted about before in another thread)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

Other then stress we know genetics plays a big role. I am very interested in the factors of genetics in regards to many behaviors expressed by humans as well as other animals.


_______________________
edit
Ohh yea also certain body chemistry (think roid rage)

It is in a human's nature to imitate others' behaviour(s). This is unquestionable in early years, and any attentive parent would testify to this truth. It is also very much in our nature to need to feel accepted by our immediate peer group, whether that be family or friends. This, I believe, is most important during the most formative years of our personality development.

Those two notions combine to produce our persona(s), ego, mask(s), worldly fingerprint, or whatever one chooses to call the coping mechanism(s) which cause one to act differently than they would have normally acted in an attempt to gain approval from others. If this false measure is continued for long enough, it becomes unconsciously ingrained into the person's thought process, and that person begins to believe that they really are the product which was once a mere front for acceptance.

This is, where I believe, people begin to lose track of who they actually are, and begin to believe that they are the person that someone else thought they should be.



Regardless of ethnic background or financial family status...

Consider expressing all of this in a positive light.

The driving force behind everything would be “desire to communicate with” instead of “need to feel accepted by”.

This would make the goal “communication” instead of “approval”.

The fundamental purpose of communication is to get another to duplicate an idea. This makes “imitation” the very most basic form of communication, and the easiest to achieve during the formative years. The more limited the abstract language skills are, the more important imitation is.

Then, the “the coping mechanism” would be actually “the enabling mechanism(s)” in that is assists in the achievement of one’s goals – more communication.

And since it is a purposeful action that is performed in order to attain a chosen goal, it is not a “false measure” at all because it is a valid means of attaining the chosen goal – that of communication.

And although the communication mechanism(s) can “become unconsciously ingrained into the person's thought process” this is not intrinsically bad. It is simply an “automaticity” that removes the necessity for constant attention, similar to the automatic actions involved in riding a bicycle - they simply enable better bike riding. Likewise "automatic" actions can enable better communication.

And finally, the concept of “losing track of who one is” translates to “becoming more like what one wants to be” – a better communicator.



Just a “free will” viewpoint to contrast the “deterministic” one.

I beg to differ. All modern biology has shown is that there is a temopral concidence between the two phenomenon. There is no proof of one being the cause of the other. That is strictly conjecture based on the assumption of deterministism.

I wouldn't define that as a "free-will" viewpoint, so much as a (perhaps) more enlightened perspective on determinism. There isn't such a thing as free-will.

Definition: Free Will - Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Let's say that all of a sudden (and oh my) god appears to me and sets down three different colored balls in front of me. He then says "Pick one."

Though it is my choice as to which ball I pick, I am still constrained to the three that he has laid out. I cannot pluck a fourth ball of MY choosing from the air surrounding me.

Thus, my choices are limited by physical forces.



Given the observer-reality correlation, couldn't it also be said that other people are also locking in "who" you are? You become the front that you show to the world, not necessarily even because you have to believe it. Even at a more physiological level. If you're an angry person all the time, your cells have more receptors for the angry chemical that your brain sends throughout the body. Your cells even become dependent upon anger, since other receptors in the cells walls had to disappear to make space for that emotion.

Your example appears to illustrate the opposite of your premise. You define free will as "expressing personal choice" and then stipulate that "it is my choice" in the example.

Further you go on to point to the fact of your inability to create a fourth ball as proof that free will doesn’t exist. This implies that any restriction whatsoever negates free will. The logical extrapolation of that is that free will requires omnipotence.

Now if you wish to interpret the definition in that manner, you have the free will to do so. Just understand that I don’t agree with your interpretation.

And let me point out that "limited choices" (your words describing the number of available options) is not the same thing as "determined choice" (the words in the definition describing the process of choosing)

What is the real reason for this thread/web site/internet/electrons/churchkeys and kites/inventive behavior/the question why,,?