Nikolas – how can biology possibly tell us “the very way in which we should live and the choices we must make about life”?

A study of biology can tell us how things live but it cannot tell us anything at all about how things ought to live.

In saying that humans “must be understood as biological”, are you saying that you believe humans are nothing more than biological, material entities? If that should be true then you can forget about ethics altogether.

*are you saying that you believe humans are nothing more than biological, material entities?*

Well JP, there are no "ghosts" in the machine, that we know of or
can prove. Ethics and morality can make perfect sense within
social species which mutually benefit from cooperation and harmonious
living.

Ignoring Scrooge McDuck humans are the greediest

Yabby - For sure people can choose to act in ways that suit their mutual self-interest – but it is a mistake to say that that is “moral behaviour”. Moral behaviour is about doing what is believed to be right.

It may benefit the majority of a community to enslave a sub-section of that community. Most of us though want to say that would be morally wrong. What however would be biologically wrong with such slavery?

Indeed JP, that is why we had the evolution of empathy.

We can show that other primates display empathy. So we are hardly
unique.

But lets say JP had an accident, part of his brain was damaged.
There are plenty of such cases around the world. JPs behaviour
changes dramatically, through no will of his own. Purely a
question of the mind is, what the brain does.

If the mind was more then biology, then clearly biology would not
matter, as it clearly does, with brain damage.

We are walking, talking primates, not fallen angels.

Yabby writes
'Indeed JP, that is why we had the evolution of empathy. '

You must be a comedian Yabby. We certainly have more empathy for the unborn don't we?
'

There is more to the evolution of empathy than that which is supposed to have been 'given' to us by a mythical God, rather than a biological consequence of our human evolution.

If our 'morality' is God-given, then why is it that when a brain is damaged, say after a stroke or cerebral haemorhage, some people become totally different to their previous selves, including a complete change in personality and 'morals'?

The Biological sciences still have a long way to go to explain human behaviours, but I believe they will eventually have all the answers.

Yabby, you say, “that is why we had the evolution of empathy”, as if evolution/biology was deliberately heading toward some goal.

But if materialism is correct, then matter just is and what happens is just what happens to happen with no intention or purpose.

Suseonline – the study of biology can give us no answers as to what is right or wrong no matter how long it is studied. You cannot determine how things ought to be from a study of how things happen to be.

*as if evolution/biology was deliberately heading toward some goal.*

Perhaps it just appears to you that way, JP. Mutations are common
and were perhaps even more common, when the planet was fairly
radioactive.

If empathy benefits the survival of a species, why should natural
selection not continue to select for that genetic trait?

Now take canibalism. Its very rare in nature for good reasons.
If a species started eating each other regularly, they clearly
would not survive for too long. Empathy on the other hand, would
have the opposite effect.

Runner, best you put down that bible for a minute and swat up your
biology 101, which you clearly missed.

I note that you have not yet sold your computer to save the starving
babies which are already on the planet. Before worrying about embryos,
worry about those beings which can actually think and feel.

For of course in nature, far more potential beings will be created
then can ever survive.

Less unwanted babies in the third world might just mean less hunger
and starvation, which is not such a bad thing really, if one feels
empathy.

"A study of biology can tell us how things live but it cannot tell us anything at all about how things ought to live."

"But if materialism is correct, then matter just is and what happens is just what happens to happen with no intention or purpose."

These two statements summarize the reasons why people look to the supernatural/religion for guidance in their lives. The thought of having to decide by themselves how to live, and the reason for living scares the crap out of them.

So, who tells you how to live? God, a man speaking on his behalf? The only thing worse than having no ethics is taking your ethics from someone who tells you what to do.

Yabby – the term ‘natural selection’ is just a short-hand way of saying that what happens to survive is what survives. There is no deliberate choosing of particular traits that are working toward some ultimate goal.

Living things have a survival instinct but there is nothing in biology that shows us that things ought to survive or that anything else ought to happen. Biology is completely amoral.

Stezza – well at least you admit you have no ethics, which is quite a step to make. But a rather disturbing one.

*Biology is completely amoral*

JP, there is no objective morality, so its basically your
subjective opinion. But as we see with empathy, it can evolve
and we can give it value, as its beneficial to our species.

Meantime there is not a scrap of subtantiated evidence of
anyone being in touch with the Almighty him/herself, although
many a snakeoil salesman claims to be so and its a great
way of manipulating others.

Meantime I can claim that its ethical to be empathetic, to
help the little old lady across the street etc.

But if I do it out of my own volition, rather then because
I fear judgement day or burning in hell forever, then
IMHO, my ethics are superior to those of the true believer,
for its not hope and fear that drives me.

JP

What in my post made you think I had no ethics? All I did was ask you where you get your ethics/morals from? Do you believe in supernatural beings? Do they speak to you and tell you what to do? Or perhaps you believe a man, who speaks to you on behalf of a supernatural being?

"Biology is completely amoral"

Do you claim not to be biological or do you claim to be amoral?

Yabby – okay, so we agree that in a materialistic universe all morality is simply made up by people, according to their preferences. If that is so, can one moral position be any better or worse than another?

Were Pol Pot’s moral views as valid as those of Gandhi? If not, why not? I presume you would not like Pol Pot slaughtering millions of people, but what makes your subjective opinion about right and wrong more valid than his? Besides, why should Pol Pot care what you think?

Stezza – I guess it was my error. When you wrote: “The only thing worse than having no ethics is taking your ethics from someone who tells you what to do”, I assumed that you were rejecting the latter position and therefore you must hold the former position, i.e. – “having no ethics”.

The only point I have been seeking to make, in relation to the original article, is that we cannot derive morality from a study of biology. Any "morality" that exists in a materialistic universe is simply made up and is completely subjective.

But a made up morality seems to be about as meaningless and useless as a made up God.

It seems to me though that when a person is raped or murdered that something definitely wrong has happened and it is not just because I happen to have a preference against rape or murder. If it is correct that these things are objectively wrong, then I think it necessarily follows that there is more to us than biology.

Methinks this extract has rather left us in the lurch as to what the author is really getting at - or is it only me who is left a trifle confused as to the author's ultimate intentions?

"Nonetheless, the idea that humans, like all other living organisms, must be understood as biological poses a radical challenge to our politics, to our ethics, and to all the disciplines that try to understand human societies and cultures. It is a challenge that cannot be ignored, and must be grasped in new critical collaborations across ‘the two cultures’."

I may be being picky but I can't tell if the point is a re-evaluation of nature versus nurture, or a review of the limits of biomedical engineering and genetic modification. I've accepted a long way back that the human is an animal, and prone to all that biology, emotionality, imagination and mental exertion can produce, but that hardly seems to be the issue. Could it be perhaps that psychiatry, psychology and the social sciences need to take greater heed of the innate (biology based) capacities of human kind for a range of anti-social and self-satisfying behaviours, or altenatively of the possibilities for balancing or exacerbation of such drives by ingrained learning or indoctrination? I don't see a great deal new here, either way.

"The two cultures"? Proposed revised interraction?

JP and Yabby,

Biology is amoral? Meaning innately? Meaning with no sense of affinity with one's own kind, no empathy, no collaboration? Meaning pure dog eat dog, with no emotionality, no sense of possible consequences, sheer instinctive survival thrust? Are we possibly making a good description here of a primal human drive?

Other life forms do not generally revel in the destruction and elimination of their own kind. Hence, a different innate biological makeup and predisposition? I would proffer that humankind's extensive cerebral capacity is both a blessing and a curse. The brain and neurological system are a function of the biology of all higher life forms, with human kind simply going quite a stage futher in relevant development, replete with advantages and vulnerabilities.

JP, people, like other species, are influenced by their genetic
makeup, which has a biological basis.

Now if you look at common "morality" that evolved in various tribes
around the world, killing one of your own tribe was not generally
accepted, but killing other tribes over fights for territory etc,
certainly was. Not much different to the "Christian" morality that
many of our nations have adopted today, as we regularly send troops
to war.

Pol Pot killed his own people, thus is morally condemned by most.

All not much different to chimpanzees, who regularly patrol the
boundaries of their territory in groups and kill other chimps who
invade, but like most species squabble regularly, without killing
each other.

But indeed our morality is quite flexible, which shows its
subjectivity. The age of consent varies dramatically across the
world. In Australia you can be locked up as a paedophile for having
sex with a 15.9 year old, in other parts of the world they think
nothing more of it. Its a subjective line that we draw in the sand.

auther/quote..""speculating about its implications
for our capacity to understand and control everything,
ranging from our cognitive capacities to aging and death.

Yet the more we know, the more we realise how little we know.""

that sums it up for me

to think of life as purely biological is a materialistic danger

everyone dies
get over it

and then that famouse law of creation
ok science...that energy cant be CREAted NOR destroyed

a living sperm accepted a living sperm
[life from life]..another law

your quoting that bacteria..[with manmade dna]
first began its life as a living bacteria

no scientist ever has made a life
let alone 'evolved' it

science cant even name the first 'life'
how useless is that

science now has found particles faster than light
[you who trust man[science]..can get decieved

name the first life
then we will talk

recall yourown words..""There is no simple progression from our ability to tackle simple problems to the expertise needed to tackle complex ones, no golden path to ever expanding powers.""

thus in time we ALL die
and our life energy then lives on forever

[E=not created..nor destroyed]
live with it

the crustation/quote..'"But lets say JP had an accident,
part of his brain was damaged.

JPs behaviour changes dramatically,
through no will of his own.""

mate..yabby..think
i got a computa...[call it mind]

my mind needs to talk to you..THROUGH the web
through the web..through your link..to your computa

'break'..any of them and the brain cant convey
[be it pj's OR YOURS..ok or mine]

the brain is no more than a telephone exchange
[beasts cant recognise the higher thoughts passing through them
but your micrsoft computer can]

beasts are beast vbecause they got no ability to make sense of the higher things..YOU can make sense of..[if you try]

im sadend that the 60 million
aborted americans alone..[aborted since vietnam war]
dont regester with more compassion...

[if you found all your yabbies
floating in ya pond..would you be more upset about 'them'..

and still switch off the mass muder of babies
..in the 'land of the 'free'lunch..?

its not as if you dont know the difference between brain and mind

""question of the mind is,
what the brain does.""

isnt as important..as the mind
that thought to ask the question

""We are walking,talking primates,""

mate primates dont talk

then your last quote..""not fallen angels""

mate...from beast to mankind
our minds evolved ever higher
after man incarnation..next we reach[if we so chose]
to be as angels..[serving gods good will]

from there we can reach the status in the finite heavens

stars..in our own right
true suns of good..realised sons of god

http://www.dlwaldron.com/bonobos.html

There you go OUG, sometimes pictures say more then
1000s of words.

These certainly do.

First up, the human animal is biologically a primate, and the human animal is capable of speech; ergo, the human animal Is a "talking primate" (among other things less complimentary and less endearing to other species).

Yabby et al,

I can't help wondering if the human animal may not have a special gene, one not shared by other primates or anthropoid apes (these being our nearest biological "relatives") - and also not shared by any other living species I can think of - relating to, or even definitive of, humankind's singular drive not just for survival and propagation, but for the utmost domination of the domain, of the Earth and of all it contains.

No other animal exhibits environmental dominance behaviour akin to that of humans. Chimps and many other species fight to protect their domain, their territory, in what would be seen as normal survival behaviour, but they don't go around bashing everyone and everything they don't like (including of their own kind) to death. It thence appears possible that it is only the absolute futility of any attempt by any one group of humans to try to dominate and eliminate all the rest of humanity (or in other words to attain universal ethnic/genetic purity) that has prevented a worldwide ethnic-cleansing/genocide campaign - not that some haven't tried in any event (and fortunately failed).

Therefore one might reasonably hypothesize that it is only learning, ie environment/nurture which keeps mankind in check, and it is the reverse of such "positive morality" influence (ie Negative, immorality or amorality "indoctrination") which may account for some continuing to do the "sisyphus" and train terrorists, suicide bombers, child soldiers, jihadists, etc, or become potentates and tyrants, etc. (What keeps the likes of Mogabe clinging on to power?)

I don't think people are born evil, but have the capacity - with some much more susceptible than others.

dear yabby...a picture might be worth a 1000 words
but i have read near 10,000 of you mentioning your bonobo theory

[and mate im not against their mjeans of diplomacy[really]
but if a bonobo presented herself to me..i could easilly say no

heck i have turned down human acting like bonobo
so clearly with any bonobo vision...your pushing poop up hill as far as im concerned..[i need words]..your evidence of some bonobo pictures..just isnt proof of anything

i have pets that act human..animals dream
we are biologicly related...im fine with that
mate in hell...huhmans assume their base animal lust forms

that still dont explain your condoning murder of 50 million babies..[in usa since vietnam war alone]

there is a difference of mind here mate
one can find like mind..in many divergent brains

i came accross a fine sepperation of mind
in the link i posted at the bias topic
http://new-birth.net/booklet/GettingOut.PDF

its a guys study of death..[or rather what happens after]
in it he explains much of the so called memories tunnels etc,..are the physical brain shutting down..[yet the mind often immediatly is in heaven[or hell]

mate if you read my link
i will read yours

but we both made up our minds
and with no bonobo to make us see reason
well mate thats it i guess

salt peter seems a deeper thinker
he must have a higher mind

so i will return later
to find out what his mind made his brain reveal

animal minds are instinct../memory
heck even trees and plants have emotions
but higher concepts..[over and abouve presenting your pink bits]

that takes mind..
not brawn nor brain

salty/peter..quote..""the human animal is biologically a primate, and the human animal is capable of speech;""

the human mind is capable of writing
so loose the animal lets do it with words

words in writing need mind
to write it..as well as comprehend that written

we are further from the beast..
than any THEORY of evolution could grasp..or explain

""wondering if the human animal may not have a special gene"'

genes as you know..can be present..but not switched on..till the right circumstances or stimuli..we arnt beasts[ok many of us arnt]..because we chose to avoid negative cosequence]

animals have no such multifacted mechanisms..[of mind]
to forsee more than immediate con-see-quence..

they cannot see 5 moves ahead,
like we would need..to play..say chess..[succesfully]
nor able to write shakespeare..nor comprehend the inner workings of the plot

see that if life was a radio wave
the beasts are on the landline..and us able to connect to wifi[in real time]...try to think like spirit thinks

pretend yiour a spirit..wispering into the mind of the beast the words of a song..or a play..or how to build an atom bomb
thing is you can wisper in the beasts ear..till the cows come home...and get nothing

but our mind..in the higher realms of being
we can grasp such concepts..

[see how things work..is the law...*MORE SHALL BE GIVEN*]

if we think a certain thought
that singular thought..links to all the other same minded thought..

thought continues

Saltpetre,

Primates in general are forest dwelling fruit pickers who eat where they harvest. Man evolved the machinery - psychological and physical - to range away from the home base for the purpose of hunting protein. In doing this he had to evolve all sorts of cooperative, and therefore tribal, behaviours to survive. According to Desmond Morris, a big brain is only part of the deal. man had to evolve physically and behaviourally quite significantly to compensate for the deficits apparent compared to true carnivores such as lions and wolves.

So it seems that our blending of primate origins and our evolution into a protein-hunting carnivore has furnished us with behaviours that both exalt us and demean us. Complexity seems to be our middle name.

Interesting question, Salpetre.

I think its probably a bit of both, ie nature and nurture. Certainly
evil can be taught, as you point out, with child soldiers and others.

But I think that genes play a role too. I was just pondering
the other day, about how the lives of some of my old school class
landed up. The doctors and lawyers were already evident then.
We also had a bit of a psychopath in the class. He landed up being
convicted of murder, in his late 20s. I think it was just how
his brain was wired.

So do psychopaths learn to become psychopaths? For some it seems
like an innate tendency.

alternate thought continued
[post limited lol]

continued

and we get the imputs of mind..plus like mind
as those spirits of like mind jump on an open mind
receptive to their own passions[will]

for good or ill
that concentrated thought..attracts further thoughts
[those not recognising the concept cant get it[ie beasts]

anyhow..any new origonal thought
then need to get past the material obsessions of the material[animal brain]

to be made into our works/deeds
our ideas..our life..[ie the collective works of our deeds]

jesu said..by their works1deeds
will we know bonobo from saltpetre

and know salty peter from salt-pet/re
because we can translate concepts of mind

":"I can think of - relating to,
or even definitive of, humankind's singular drive""

see mate thats mind
so much in-spi-ration
you were lost in the vast concepts your mind presented to your id

now look at the bonobo mind
with a 'teacher/rabbi..wispering into its mind a concept

e=mc2...
there is the beast..thinking what is e

rabbies reply
e=mc2

anyhow the bonobo is wasting its teachers time

he the dumb beast
gets angry...and the master bonobo...lies down before him
to subdue his inner beast..that ensures..his brain can never find
the logic and reasoning within his own mind

""not just for survival and propagation,
but for the utmost domination of the domain,
of the Earth and of all it contains.""

no
for us to be brother..[our brothers keeper]
to look after him*..spiritually..materially

till he achieves higher incarnation
and finds his own mind..
IN HIS OWN TIME..!
by his own toa[way]

think of these words

TRUTH?

you cant handle the truth..!
[till we can grasp basic concepts
[ie listen to our inner voices..logicly reasonably
appriciate the pearl from the swine

well let our kids [beasts]..be kids..
and our beasts be beast..and in their own time they wake to realise

heck e=mc2..thats what we got taught when we slept

and so the sleepers sleep
in their plant..[flora/fauna] bodies
each according as they wished..god allows ignorance
as long as it was chosen by our free chosing..[by our freewill]

Poirot,

I think you are right, that evolution of enhanced hunting capabilities, in addition to a strong survival instinct/drive, may well account for the apparent paradox of humankind, and possibly the "special" (and seemingly unique) gene I have hypothesized - the paradox being man's capacity for great empathy and compassion in some circumstances, and of cruel violence in others. (My gene theory is probably overly simplistic in actuality, just a construct to enable evaluation of possibilities - a bit like those "packets" of air they refer to in discussing adiabatic atmospheric temperature variations.)

The relevant hunting drive encompasses cunning, planning, preparation and weapons fabrication, plus the awareness, coordination and stealth necessary for the stalk, and then the pinnacle, the emotional development essential to a successful kill - bravery, audacity, determination, and the moral strength to sacrifice oneself if necessary for the good of the group. It may of course be that this latter capacity may not always exhibit correctly, as "moral strength", but occasionally alternatively as a reversion to the "id", a release of inhibition, a casting off of all caution, of all morality, and a plunging into wild unbridled rage. Many colours.

Yabby,

"Rogues" occasionally seem to occur in a range of higher species, but fortunately they seem generally to be less successful propagating than their more "normal" or group-conscious peers. I was particularly impressed by a doco I saw on a gorilla group in Rwanda, where a bossy silverback was deposed by a supportive and caring one, the latter also, though strenuous in defence of the group, had the sense to move them away from imminent threat from humans, rather than standing to fight. A thinking individual. In the end result this clever fellow had passed his genes on more successfully than any other recorded - measured by DNA analysis. A lesson in social stability and success.

*The relevant hunting drive encompasses cunning, planning, preparation and weapons fabrication, plus the awareness, coordination and stealth necessary for the stalk, and then the pinnacle, the emotional development essential to a successful kill *

Salpetre, its not so commonly known outside of the primatology
community, but chimpanzees do in fact treat meat as a delicacy
and hunt for monkeys as a group.

There has been the odd documentary produced on the subject, of
chimpanzees hunting in the Cameroon. They fulfill most of
your above criteria, quite amazing really.

*but if a bonobo presented herself to me..i could easilly say no*

Gawd OUG, I think you have just confirmed your animalistic
tendencies here, for that thought to even cross your mind.

The same hormones which drive you, happen to drive bonobos,
so you have far more in common then you might think.

No doubt those bonobo females would reject you too :)

never the twain shall meat
bonobo's is pri-mate..and we
able to read write and make jokes

we are all mearly huh?-man..

its fine if you think the picture of the apes
and some long lost mythical fraud..then a modern day human
[if you think thats any sort of proof..well go for it]

we also share half our dna with a banana
so forgive me for saying your all herbs
[banna isnt a fruit]

but heck you lot with half bannana for thinking
well thats your choice

you will have many saying we share 95 %..or 99%..[or whatever]..'genes'..with apes..[the last time i did a count..thats over 5000 individual mutatons]

everything is different..in size shape etc
yet all sperm have a tail or tails

so where yiour trying to go is to EITHER the bonobo
or towards thje angel[or demon]....its your choice

ps those who like to think of humans as mere apes
regard themselves as the higheast evolution
thus the rest lower evolutions..

little better than bonobo
KNOWING..if they push your buttons the right way
and you die..thinking your dying for freedom..when your really dying for fashists..[puhh war what is it good for]

[its good only for..that elite]..
who own more of creation than you own monkey dna