What is Natural Human Behavior?

[sunspot]

I would like to begin a post to get everyone's opinion as to what constitutes natural human instinct and behavior. Humans are different than animals in that we can act both inside and outside the range of observed animal instinct and behavior. Some of this extended behavior may be natural human, while other aspects of this extended hehavior might be unnatural human behavior.

[bascule]

All human behavior is natural

[insane_alien]

All we can do is act natural.

[sunspot]

For example, would someone who likes to cut themselves be considered natural human behavior? Would starving oneself until death be considered natural human behavior? Is war natural human behavior? Is beastiality natural human behavior since dogs hump human legs all the time?

 

If we look at the animals this may give up a basic data set from which one could build and extrapolate natural human behavior. For example, humans are omnivores. Human do not have a fixed breeding season. Humans are social animals although isolated individuals are also possible. Humans care for their young well into adult life of their children.

[reverse]

From what I can tell,

It all revolves around the concept known as “randomness”.

If all things are like a gigantic complex machine, with each part calculate able, then it follows that “we” must be natural.

However, if there is such a thing as “true randomness”, then some of our behavior, at least in theory, might be counter to the objective of said complex machine.

[sunspot]

I am not sure if I agree with randomness. One only has to look at eco-systems. They are orderred in a very specific way. If humans add some randomness to an eco-system, like harvesting all the big tree within the rain forests, the system breaks down. The natural instincts of the animals are optimized by the an orderred environment.

[reverse]

My point is simpler than that.

You are either random or you a pattern.

If no example of “true” randomness can be found,

Then, all things…you ..me…the plants, animals, planets, galaxies …all must be following a pattern.

Nature is that pattern.

[aguy2]

You are either random or you a pattern.

 

Why either/or? What is wrong with a 'random pattern' or better yet a 'patterned randomness'?

 

aguy2

[reverse]

Or a person who is tall/short or fat/thin or lighting conditions that are bright/dark.

 

I like your concept....

 

But it is precluded by the way the English language works..

[aguy2]

Or a person who is tall/short or fat/thin or lighting conditions that are bright/dark.

 

I like your concept....

 

But it is precluded by the way the English language works..

 

Are you saying that the sentence,"The shotgun blast created a random pattern on the target." doesn't make sense?

 

aguy2

[reverse]

yes...in the pure sense.

 

no.. in the common usage.

 

This is quite a sophisticated area of Philosophy we are discussing here.

If you do a bit of research you will see what I mean.

 

How about talking to the point exactly.

 

Man…like the animals in many respects..

Lives,eats,grows,fights,mates,dies.

 

Unlike many animals in many respects..

Excessively complex verbal communication,

Excessively complex use of tools, to reform surroundings to advantage.

Excessively complex use of stratagems ,to defer instant reward for latter gain.

 

What unnatural aspect of mankind provided these extremes..

Or are these behaviors simply the extreme demonstrations of natural behaviors.

[aguy2]

What unnatural aspect of mankind provided these extremes..

Or are these behaviors simply the extreme demonstrations of natural behaviors.

 

Is this a question? My normal response to questions involving 'natural', 'unnatural', 'supernatural', ect. is to say, "If it exists it is natural. If it does not exist it is most likely a product of the future and/or the imagination."

 

Nonetheless, wouldn't your question (?) be more useful if you substituted the term 'biological life' for 'mankind'?

 

Even to concide that these 'excessive responses' are outgrowths of natural behavior would beg the question, not answer it. The question would naturally devolve to, "What unnatural aspect of nature provided these extremes?" I really think, "What unnatural aspect of biological life provided these extremes?" would be a 'meatier' question.

 

aguy2

[reverse]

How are you using the word “Natural”

 

In the ancient sense of the word…or in the more recent “biological” usage?

[aguy2]

How are you using the word “Natural”

 

5. Having a physical existence, as opposed to one that is spirital, intellectual, or fictitious

 

Most of the other possible definitions seem to use the word 'nature' to define the word 'natural', and then use the term 'natural' to define the word 'nature'.

 

aguy2

[reverse]

And does that include chemical interactions and Proton, Neutron, Electron interactions...etc?

Gravitational interactions..

All to be considered "natural" phenomena?

[rhiannon]

what exactly would be classed as unnatural though?

i would have though that everything that could be seen or touched as natural.

even something fictious or imaginary is natural as the imagination is part of 'natural human behaviour'.

[aguy2]

what exactly would be classed as unnatural though?

 

My first instinct would be to equate 'unnatural' with 'non-existent' , but for the purposes of this discussion I would go with, "at variance with what is normal or to be expected".

 

aguy2

[Ophiolite]

For example, would someone who likes to cut themselves be considered natural human behavior?

Place a tiger in a small cage and it will pace up and down, and swing its head from side to side, repeatedly. Such behaviour is unnatural for the tiger. Why? For the same reason that humans perform unnatural acts, such as the example of self harm you gave: they are under stress.

If we define unnatural as being significantly different from the norm then we find that most (all) animals will behave unnaturally if placed in an abnormal or excessively stressful situation.

 

Note: I see I have mirrored aguy2's definition. So, we must be right, since we now represent the norm (or at least the mode).

[sunspot]

Ophiolite raises an excellent point, with humans, modern culture is actually quite new on the evolutionary time scale. The first modern cultures, beyond migratory and hunting/gathering, are about 6000-7000 years old, while fossil evidence have human remains from at least one million years. Culture is constantly changing for both better and worse. The natural human is put into this constantly changing cage leading to unnatural stresses and unnatural behavior. The natural I had in mind is the basic set of behavior apart from all that is induced by unnatural stresses.

 

Many people discount religious documents for defining natural behavior, however if one think logically, observation of human behavior is not new. It is one of the oldest sciences. Great philosophers did it thousands of years ago and many of these writings are still appropriate today. The advantage of the ancient observer was that culture was just beginning the transition from natural simplicity into the radidly changing cultural cage. The changes were far more obvious between the two simpler data sets.

[reverse]

Place a tiger in a small cage and it will pace up and down, and swing its head from side to side, repeatedly. Such behaviour is unnatural[/i'] for the tiger.

 

Not exactly a wide population sample there...and also a circular argument. but entertaining none the less.

 

If all tigers (and in fact most animals) pace in a very confined space...then it could be called the animals "natural" reaction to that situation.

 

If however a tiger smuggled in a cake with a file hidden inside,

and started filing the bars...that would mean it was time to get the tiger a bigger cage (with the extra money a "file using tiger" would bring in - from all the extra Zoo customers).

[reverse]

Blowing your self up in aid of a philosophical cause seems a tad unnatural to me.

 

Unless of course, you transfer the "natural" protective instincts of a social group member - outward to include a wider philosophical group....

 

Then it looks “natural”...

[Ophiolite]

Not exactly a wide population sample there...

You may be somewhat familiar with the concept of an example. If not, that's one in my previous post.

 

Sunspot, I think the problem with your opening post was that you did not define natural behaviour. That has opened the door to irrelevant discussion of the 'well **** man, I mean, like if it's done it must be, like, natural' kind.

I stick by the definition offered above - behaviour significantly different from the norm. You have introduced a further consideration. Under what circumstances do we consider man to be in his natural environment, and therefore likely to be displaying natural behaviour. Should we be conducting our measurements on the savannas of Africa? I think not. Cultural if not genetic adjustments have already been made to our current unnatural (?), but certainly normal environments. That is where we should be measuring our normal, i.e natural behaviour.

[reverse]

You may be somewhat familiar with the concept of an example. If not' date=' that's one in my previous post.

[/quote']

 

Just having a little fun...you have to admit...it wasn't the best example.

 

So what about people in Africa, the ones who put large plates in their lips...is that natural human behaviour...they all do it...

it's the norm for that culture.

 

and now I think we are getting to the heart of the issue.

[aguy2]

My first instinct would be to equate 'unnatural' with 'non-existent' ' date=' but for the purposes of this discussion I would go with, "at variance with what is normal or to be expected".

[/quote']

 

If we plug this definition into your question (?) we get, "What aspect of mankind, that is at variance with what we would expect, provided these extremes?"

 

As I think you can see these extremes are at the core of 'humanness' and would certainly be expected. If you had taken a good look at your question and substitued something like 'biological life' for 'mankind' we could have been discussing substantive issues instead of wasting time and effort while you tried to defend a simple mistake in syntax.

 

aguy2

[Ophiolite]

If we plug this definition into your question (?)

You have lost me. Whose question?