reply to post by Toughiv
The sudden shift from moral reasoning to rational allows for certain actions, for example murder. Whilst it may be justifiable via reasoning, morally
and ethically it can be seen as wrong. The demoralisation of nations through educating the younger generations, plus societal norms and the need for
money are what are responsibile to how people behave in today's society.
I think human behavior is generally a rather complex emergent phenomena which stems from the interactions of some very basic rules. For instance, to
give a rough and highly simplified framework and generalities: The golden rule is Reproduction at any cost. The "Selfish Gene", as Dawkins puts it.
Survival of an individual until reproduction can be enhanced by grouping together. This is the basis for herds, packs, schools, flocks, etc. Promoting
the health and well being of individuals within your group, promotes the overall health of the group. A healthier group promotes the survival of the
individual. This leads to altruistic behavior. On the other hand, you still have the drive for reproduction. Reproduction requires resources, which
leads to competition. The interaction of competition and altruism creates social animals and group structures. And now we're starting to talk about
the emergent patterns interacting with each other - creating the ground rules for another layer of complexity... and on, and on, and on. The
interactions of individuals within groups creates societies - super organisms, who then interact with each other according to the rules of their
societies.
After that... throw in the emergence of a brain like ours which can reflect and think about it's own operation - yet isn't aware of the intrinsic
rules that created it. Those and similar rules operate on a subconscious level - both for the individual and the society. The brain doesn't
cognitively know that helping out others promotes both your own survival and your species survival - it just feels good when you help out someone who
needs it. Some might say it's the light of god's love your feeling - and maybe that's true - but you're also getting a mood altering chemical
release in your brain.
Now, like all complex non-linear systems - an oversimplification is bound to be horrendously incorrect. Just keep in mind that this isn't a "x + y =
z" linear causality. It's merely repeating trends we've observed in nature and doesn't necessarily represent the only factors. Similar behaviors
in different species could be brought about by modified interactions of variations on those rules and the environment. To a degree, this is
reminiscent to the basic rules which govern chemical interactions turning your DNA code into a three dimensional living organism. Small variations
from the environment (chemicals the mother ingests during the child's development) can produce spectacularly larger errors later on in the
self-assembly process - most dramatically shown in the case of birth defects.
I know Biggie doesn't like complexity theory, but despite it's paradox it can be quite useful. For instance, it's still predictive. We've been
able to simulate populations in a virtual environment following basic rules such as these and come out with similar results to what we see in nature
on a rather base level. But a simulation is still a simulation. True, perhaps, but the really remarkable thing is that we can remove all inherent
rules from the programing (such as rewards for reproduction) and still see the emergence of reproduction (the golden rule) as it's own intrinsic
reward... which you'll see explained at the end of the short video below.
I'll also go on record as saying that (given what we know) I am confident enough in the predictive gauging of trends complexity and emergence gives
us to say that when we start exploring space, we're going to find that the biodiversity of the universe is going to be much richer than most people
expect, and will highly resemble our own basic structures. We'll see flocking behavior, competition for resources/mates, photosynthesis, spinal
cords, bi-lateral symmetry, aviation, etc. On a narrower view with environments extremely similar to our own we'll even see remarkably similar taxa
of biodiversity.. forms which closely resemble what we know of as fish, reptiles, mammals, birds.
The problem with complexity is that it deals with reality as a whole - because reality operates as a whole.. which is why you're seeing a lot of
convergence among fields of science as specialization increases. Computers and Biology, for instance. Radically different forms... but as we're
finding out, they're also extremely similar in some very basic ways - which we are now using for interfacing technologies. It requires that you be
fairly well versed in a wide variety of fields - and there are no simple answers.
In regards to your above statement - it's not a need for money. Abolishing the money system would do nothing to solve the problem; just trade in
existing inequalities for new inequalities or displaced inequalities. The root of the problem, is competition for limited resources. This isn't just
limited to material things either... but ideas as well. Human minds are a finite resource, and those who wish to promote their ways of life will
continually compete to spread it. The burning of Alexandria and the path to Dark Ages was not paved with the gold of empires, but on the convictions
of martyrs.
I can blame religion for the environment it often promotes which lead to events such as that - or 9/11 - or the Inquisition. But I know religion
isn't the cause of it... it's our behaviors. It's part of who we are as a species... and as Christians are quick to point out with the case of
Joseph Stalin, even Atheists are capable of such atrocities. To truly change our behaviors, we have to identify what those base behaviors are, and why
we have them. Recognize them, and apply that knowledge to our everyday lives.
It's a bit analogues to medicine. The cause of a vast array of disease is genetic - either an exploit that a microbe utilizes, a mutation/trait, the
lack of a trait in the transition between environments, etc. For years, we've used what some call "S* against the wall pharmacology" where we throw
various chemical compounds either from plants or manufactured into the body and see what happens. Hopefully, we can elicit a chemical reaction which
helps the individual. However, not everybody's body chemistry is the same - and this can lead to disastrous results via unwanted side effects or
interactions. Penicillin is a monumental medical tool, but some people are allergic to it - and it will kill them. We're just now starting to enter
the age of designer medicine, where a comprehensive understanding of the human genome can lead to fundamental cures by quickly and directly addressing
the root cause of the illness or exploit unique to the individual's body chemistry.
We need a similar level of understanding in regards to human behaviors... and we're not going to get there by listening to new-age spiritualists,
religious fundamentalists, creationists, etc. For them it will always be a case of "the vibrations are too low", "It's Karma's cycles", "Lack
of God in one's life", "Too much God in one's life". It's all "S* against the wall".
Heh... the kicker is, we can't abolish competition. Competition may be harsh, but it promotes the diversity necessary to avoid the catastrophic
failure of an entire system. To get rid of it would be to absolutely ensure a slow death. With understanding, at least... we can work with it.
Of course, my ideas are just fighting for competition against the creationists, because I want to promote my views and influence others to help build
the world I want to live in. But at least, I think, my views have more evidence to back them.
) The demoralisation of nations through educating the younger generations, plus societal norms and the need for money are what
are responsibile to how people behave in today's society. You have got to be kidding.
