What is Natural Human Behavior?

[gcol]

An organism has a behavioural norm when acting in its natural environment.

Its natural environment is the environment in which it evolved to its present form.

If its natural environment changes, stresses will cause its behaviour norm to change, until a new new norm evolves.

A behaviour norm is only valid for any one time segment of an organism's evolutionary lifespan.

 

Therefore, all norms are temporary.

 

You will all probably think and behave differently tomorrow!

[lrokwild]

An organism has a behavioural norm when acting in its natural environment.

Its natural environment is the environment in which it evolved to its present form.

If its natural environment changes' date=' stresses will cause its behaviour norm to change, until a new new norm evolves.

A behaviour norm is only valid for any one time segment of an organism's evolutionary lifespan.

 

Therefore, all norms are temporary.

 

You will all probably think and behave differently tomorrow![/quote']

 

well said....i liked that...

[lrokwild]

New question is "What behavior separates us from the animals?"

 

First of all, what animals are we contrasting.... should we rephrase this question to...?

 

What behavior separates us from other Mammals?

 

But...

 

Ill start by saying it’s the behavior/ability to consciously control our instinctive actions or thoughts. For example, an animal will not do something if it knows that by doing so it could end its life. But humans do stuff like sky dive.... when we are consciously aware of the dangers.

 

Also I think we are so far ahead of animals that it might be difficult to fully explain the contrast. For example, we experience 100's of emotions that most animals just simply cannot. Our actions greatly represent our emotional state at any given moment.

 

 

And what about Freud’s theory of the subconscious, preconscious and conscious? Does this theory apply to animals or other mammals?

[gcol]

 

 

 

What behavior separates us from other Mammals?

 

And what about Freud’s theory of the subconscious' date=' preconscious and conscious? Does this theory apply to animals or other mammals?[/quote']

 

1. Yes, I think that would be a better question, but our behaviour should be compared to other animals rather than mammals, for they are but a subset of animals. If you insist on mammals, the question would concern the difference between us and other mammals, a much narrower consideration.

 

2. If you think there is substance in Freud's theories, therein would probably lie the biggest differences.

[lrokwild]

I only like to consider Freud’s theories as being true.... and try to form my own opinions of what is true and what isn’t.... like I hope most scientists would do....

 

And

 

I think we NEED to narrow which species we are trying to compare...because trying to compare animals to humans is like trying to compare grass to plants.... its way to general to even bother trying... so lets agree on a new question....

[lrokwild]

Freud’s drive/instinct or energy model of motivation said that we have 2 basic motives in our most deep conscious that are sex and aggression.

 

But then again if you want to adopt the beliefs of Skinner and conditioning they seem to contradict Freud’s unconscious processes.

 

If you take the two theories you can form a new one that basically says what drives us are wishes.

 

Anyways, back to Freud’s model. He was essentially saying that we are all animals, and what we pursue is always derivative of those animal motives.

 

We cannot just look at ourselves as cognitive beings with no motives.... we have drives just like any other animal.

 

Neurologically if you look at the nervous system of a human and a sheep - in humans - the centers of the brain, in the brains steam that control many aspects of our motivation and body temp regulation, food intake...ect.... are almost identical to the sheep.

 

What this suggests is that what’s happened evolutionarily we have these same basic structures, or centers of the brains that drive us, and what we have done is to build on top of those, new ways to controlling those in terms of new emotion regulations and cognitive regulation centers, but those haven’t eliminated all of that old stuff. That stuff is still there, and you see it in young children before they begin to socialize.

 

You can use this information to answer the question at hand.

 

What sets us apart from the animals is those evolved and elaborate new parts of the brain that allow us to have more control over our actions and over those older areas of the brain. Those same centers essentially allow us to think deeper than animals.

 

I think i nailed it!

[reverse]

By "Agree." did you agree that we should reduce the question to a more managable' date=' "What behavior separates us from the animals?"

 

 

 

Sorry reverse, but I checked with my Strong's and there is no mention of of an apple in Genesis. If you are going to cite a 'primary document', it might be a good idea to actually read the document before citing it. In doing your work for you I did find something that might to seen to pertain to the question at hand, which of course you remember as being, "What behavior separates us from the animals?"

 

Namely Gen.2:19

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

You are an interesting fellow Aguy.

I think I might cut out of this thread because your behavior is getting tiresome.

here is the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#The_Fall_of_Man

fight amongst yourself.

[aguy2]

An organism has a behavioural norm when acting in its natural environment.

Its natural environment is the environment in which it evolved to its present form.

If its natural environment changes' date=' stresses will cause its behaviour norm to change, until a new new norm evolves.

A behaviour norm is only valid for any one time segment of an organism's evolutionary lifespan.

 

Therefore, all norms are temporary.[/quote']

 

and. That 'norms may be temporary' is information. You seem to present it as a conclusion.

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

You are an interesting fellow Aguy.

I think I might cut out of this thread because your behavior is getting tiresome.

here is the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#The_Fall_of_Man

fight amongst yourself.

 

The site you cite says, "a tree which is otherwise unidentified." It agrees with mine. What is the problem?

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

For example, an animal will not do something if it knows that by doing so it could end its life.

 

What about male mammals that will fight to the death for breeding rights, but before doing so makes a very careful assessment of the risks?

 

aguy2

[lrokwild]

No they wouldn’t asses any risk... they would do it without thought... That’s what I was getting at.... we as humans have the ability TO think about those actions.

[reverse]

The site you cite says' date=' "a tree which is otherwise unidentified." It agrees with mine. What is the problem?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

No problem dude.

 

I'm just not that much into the detail.

And you seem to like the detail.

 

so I will just keep out of it, if that's all right.

 

see ya later.

[gcol]

and. That 'norms may be temporary' is information. You seem to present it as a conclusion.

 

aguy2

 

I presented a logical argument, resulting in a considered conclusion. You are free to question any or all of it. Alternative hypotheses eagerly awaited as a contribution to the debate.

[aguy2]

I presented a logical argument, resulting in a considered conclusion. You are free to question any or all of it. Alternative hypotheses eagerly awaited as a contribution to the debate.

 

gcol et al,

 

I think we agree that human animals and other animals both can change their behaviors in response to changes in their environment. I would contend that that the major difference between us and other animals revolves around what constitutes our respective environments or contexts. The animals behavior is adapted to an environment that is by in large imposed on the animal by forces that are beyond the contol of both the individual and its community, while the individual human's behavior is largely determined by its 'cultural' context, which is an artificial environment that is determined by the collective choices made by the individual's extended community.

 

If you would like, I could give an experimentally verifiable example of what I am talking about?

 

aguy2

[gcol]

Aguy2: That seems fair. If, for my own clarity of thought, I tidied it up a bit by saying; "The human organism alone has the ability to change its environment, and therefore its behaviour norm (and vice-versa). This, if nothing else, makes humans different". Would that do?

 

I could tack that on my original hypothesis. Even if I say so myself, it seems to hang together well. But if it is any good, someone else is bound to have said it before, and better?

[padren]

The first thing that comes to my mind in determining natural human behavior, is to seperate out localized derivations of human behavior, and try to evalute the common trends across almost all even seperate cultures.

 

I am pretty sure, there are not human social orders based on solitary behavior similar to say a tiger. Hense I'd say that grouping is a very basic element of base human nature.

 

Its very hard to define in this regard because humans pan out to be so highy adaptable, and tend to apply a wide range of social behavioral permutations to adapt to an environment instead of physical ones.

 

To me one of the strangest commonalities is nearly every culture appears to adopt rituals over time, so much so that the rare absense would seem to be more likely an environmental adaption than the opposite.

 

 

 

Would it be fair to define "natural" as the behaviors that emerge regardless of localized environmental adaptations?

[aguy2]

Would it be fair to define "natural" as the behaviors that emerge regardless of localized environmental adaptations?

 

I would tend to restate your question as, "Would it be fair to define 'normal' as the behaviors that emerge regardless of localized 'culture'?"

 

Animal and human infants tend to share a common attribute generaly called 'cuteness'. This cuteness tends to stimulate behavior that is protective and nuturing in regards to the infant. I would say that this behavioral response is a norm that we share with other animals.

 

aguy2