This whole world f***ing sucks (Rant....)

[Reaper]

Thanks for all your replies guys I really appreciate them. The thread was just more or less written out of frustration and an effort to blow off some steam, nothing to do with depression. I was just reading some book and I read something in there that really made me realize just how little I knew and how brutal the world really is...

 

 

We'll be fighting some of the very people and corporations who help make the world a fearful, unhealthy and depressing place (because that's where the money is).

 

Should be great fun!

 

Heh heh.... fighting against hugely overwhelming forces is always fun, and something that I have had experience in my short life on this planet...... and with a pretty good success rate may I add .

[YT2095]

fighting against hugely overwhelming forces is always fun, and something that I have had experience in my short life on this planet...... and with a pretty good success rate may I add .

 

 

 

well Do share these triumphs with us!

we offer a Free Blog service ya know

[Norman Albers]

Yes, here at SCIENCEFORUMS, the therapy is FREE!

[Phi for All]

Heh heh.... fighting against hugely overwhelming forces is always fun, and something that I have had experience in my short life on this planet...... and with a pretty good success rate may I add .

Then join me over here and let me know what you think.

[Glider]

That's true if you're doing a 1:1 comparison. However, when we talk about racism, sexism, oil for food gone bad, CIA intrustion and etc - these are all just complicated derivatives of self interested in-group/out-group (pack) behavior - sophisticated predatory pack animals.

Quite, but 'complex derivitives of' does not mean 'the same as'.

 

Right, and I'm including the whole of nature to make the point that we are no exception, in terms of behavior, but quite the exeption in terms of constructing notions of morality in relation to this behavior. If anything, we are wonderful creatures because we have the ability to loathe oursevles, and thus, change. (Or be depressed about it...)

We are very much the exception when it comes to behaviour. We have the choice. We can predict outcomes and plan behaviours based upon those predictions. We can override inital behavioural urges and behave contrary to them (e.g. sitting in a dentists waiting room or waiting for a blood test). We can even override reflex actions (e.g. when picking up a very hot cup of coffee when standing on your mum's brand new carpet).

[ParanoiA]

We are very much the exception when it comes to behaviour. We have the choice. We can predict outcomes and plan behaviours based upon those predictions. We can override inital behavioural urges and behave contrary to them (e.g. sitting in a dentists waiting room or waiting for a blood test). We can even override reflex actions (e.g. when picking up a very hot cup of coffee when standing on your mum's brand new carpet).

 

Primates can't do any of this? Come on, my dog overrides initial behavioral urges and behaves contrary to them.

 

We are an exception, but not without precedence.

[Glider]

Primates can't do any of this?

I don't know. Can they? When primates act, are they aware of possible alternatives? Have they made a conscious choice between these alternatives? Are they aware of the implications of their behaviour? Would they choose, for example, to reject immediate reward, or undergo short term suffering for longer term gain at some undefined point in the future?

 

Come on, my dog overrides initial behavioral urges and behaves contrary to them.

Your dog's behaviour has been conditioned. I doubt very much that these conditioned behaviours are the dog's choice, or that the dog understands the rationale behind them.

 

We are an exception, but not without precedence.

We can observe complex social behaviours in primates, true. As to the degree these behaviours are reactive, or abstracted, planned and proactive is a question.

 

Human behaviour is a complex derivative of primate social behaviour, but as I said, 'complex derivative of' does not mean 'the same as'. We as a species are subject to reciprocal determinism, which is to say, we both produce and are products of our environment. In this, we are unique.

[Royston]

We as a species are subject to reciprocal determinism, which is to say, we both produce and are products of our environment. In this, we are unique.

 

That needs to be taken further though doesn't it ?

 

The very use of a tool by a primate, and that information being passed on to future generations is a manipulation of the environment and in turn affects their behaviour. You've used the word produce, but certain primates have gone beyond mere selection of a tool for some given purpose, one example are Capuchin Monkeys, who take it further by modifying an object they've selected for a given purpose. A good example of cultural development can be seen in Japanese Maquaques, where the act of washing food has been passed down the generations, and has shaped and defined their behaviour.

 

Although these are certainly more basic than our manipulation, there's no reason to believe it stops there for the primate, it just means the process takes much longer. It's still reciprocal determinism, just in it's most basic form.

 

Humans are unique, because they can manipulate tools to such an extent (I'm using the word tool, in its most general sense) that the result can go way beyond our intuition and that we can accept and appreciate that, and it's the fact that we have developed tools that operate outside our inherent intuition, that makes us unique.

 

I'm very busy at work, so there's probably a flaw in the above, but I'll come back to it later, when I have more time.

 

I don't know. Can they? When primates act, are they aware of possible alternatives? Have they made a conscious choice between these alternatives? Are they aware of the implications of their behaviour? Would they choose, for example, to reject immediate reward, or undergo short term suffering for longer term gain at some undefined point in the future?

 

Oops, I missed this bit...I'm still wondering if there are situations that arise where immediate reward is overridden due to future planning (that isn't an evolved instinctive trait e.g a squirrel that hoards hazelnuts for the winter) within primates, but I can't think of one at the moment.

[Norman Albers]

http://www.poemhunter.com/song/all-along-the-watchtower/ Dylan and Hendricks!!!

[Glider]

That needs to be taken further though doesn't it ?

 

The very use of a tool by a primate, and that information being passed on to future generations is a manipulation of the environment and in turn affects their behaviour. You've used the word produce, but certain primates have gone beyond mere selection of a tool for some given purpose, one example are Capuchin Monkeys, who take it further by modifying an object they've selected for a given purpose. A good example of cultural development can be seen in Japanese Maquaques, where the act of washing food has been passed down the generations, and has shaped and defined their behaviour.

That's true. Raccoons also wash their food. But do either know why they do it?

 

Although these are certainly more basic than our manipulation, there's no reason to believe it stops there for the primate, it just means the process takes much longer. It's still reciprocal determinism, just in it's most basic form.

But the tools those primates use are also products of their environment.Those primates didn't produce their environment.

 

Humans are unique, because they can manipulate tools to such an extent (I'm using the word tool, in its most general sense) that the result can go way beyond our intuition and that we can accept and appreciate that, and it's the fact that we have developed tools that operate outside our inherent intuition, that makes us unique.

Yes, it's the difference between tool user (that uses or adaps an object in the environment) and tool maker. A tool maker needs to be able to mentally abstract the problem and create an entirely novel object that would solve it.

 

Oops, I missed this bit...I'm still wondering if there are situations that arise where immediate reward is overridden due to future planning (that isn't an evolved instinctive trait e.g a squirrel that hoards hazelnuts for the winter) within primates, but I can't think of one at the moment.

[/QUUOTE]Squirrels do hoard nuts, but again, as with the maquaques and raccoons, do they know why they do it?

 

Another factor that significantly influences human behaviour and differentiates humans from other animals is theory of mind (that ability attribute mental states to others). I meant to raise this in earlier posts, but forgot (been very pushed for time recently).

 

Self awareness allows one to think 'I think', but theory of mind allows an individual to think 'I think he/she thinks...'. This has a massive impact on our behaviour because, with ToM, our behaviour is also influenced by what we think others in our social group will think of it. So, a lot of our behaviour is driven by short-term hypotheses such as 'if I do this, he/she will be happy, or 'I won't do that because she/he would be upset'.

 

This too is subject to reciprocal determinism as, to a large extent, we choose our social group(s) (most people have several) and ideas of what constitutes acceptable/unacceptable behaviours differ between groups. Thus, our behaviour will differ depending on what group you are with. Your behaviour with your family will differ from your behaviour with your friends, which will differ from your behaviour with your boss/colleagues and so-on.

[Royston]

Raccoons also wash their food. But do either know why they do it?

 

No, I don't think so, that's why I used squirrels as an example of an evolved instinctive trait, rather than a conscious decision. I've just reread my post, and it sounds as though I was implying squirrels consciously plan for the future

 

But the tools those primates use are also products of their environment.Those primates didn't produce their environment.

 

I'm still not sure about this, as an example of our uniqueness. Modifying your environment, however small that modification may be, is still a level of production. After all, building a house is modifying the environment, it's merely a tool for providing warmth and shelter...just because that modification maybe small doesn't mean it should be disregarded, such as shaping a piece of bone for a task. The very act of doing this, means the environment has changed to suit the individual...obviously then it needs to be determined whether it was a conscious decision or not...which would be where our uniqueness is apparent.

 

I'm just trying to strip the definition you used earlier to it's bear fundamentals. The differences between us and primates may seem stark when we're surrounded by technology, and our level of communication, and our reasoning abilities et.c et.c but when these attributes are stripped down, we get into those horrible grey areas. Hence why I was wondering if there was a situation in primate groups, where instant reward is overridden by some future planning...now due to the level of cognition and sentience in some primates, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss that this doesn't happen. Obviously if it doesn't, then that would be another example of our uniqueness.

 

Another factor that significantly influences human behaviour and differentiates humans from other animals is theory of mind (that ability attribute mental states to others). I meant to raise this in earlier posts, but forgot (been very pushed for time recently)

 

I was going to bring up creativity / abstract thought. That we create for no other reason than the act of creation, art et.c Which is an inherent rather than conditioned attribute...I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

 

I realise it might seem silly that I'm arguing our uniqueness, I just think the obvious differences, aren't as obvious when considered at a fundamental level.

[Glider]

No, that's true. At a fundamental level ther is a lot of overlap, certainly between behaviours.

 

The thing that really makes the difference is the mental processes underlying those behaviours, and that is always going to be difficult to infer. There are 'obvious' examples, e.g. termites build houses. By scale, these are massive skyscrapers 'designed' with cunningly subtle heating/air conditioning built in and powered by entirely natural processes (if only we could do that!).

 

However, it's fair to say that these amazing structure are not the product of abstract thinking and problem solving. But where to draw the line? In higher primates we see examples of tool modification, but what are the mental processes underlying it? Is this behavioour the product of abstracting a problem and mentally picturing what would be required to solve it and then making it, or is it entirely a learned behaviour acquired from watching the parent's behaviour? Is a combination?

[iNow]

It's always a combination... the old nature/nurture debate is not so black and white, as both are always involved. However, I read your approach to this issue such that you're basically suggesting our uniqueness is in our prefrontal cortex?

[Glider]

Insofar as the prefrontal area is associated with the mental representation of external reality, planning and so-on, yes, but therre must also be other differences, e.g. in association areas between limbic structures associated with affective - motivational responses and the singulate gyrus associated with response selection and prefrontal areas associated with planning and inhibition of 'inapropriate' behaviours. There must also be differences in areas associated with memory (medial temporal lobes, hippocampus) and certainly in areas associated with language (Wernike's and Broka's areas).

 

In fact, it's highly unlikely that there is any one area that makes 'the' difference. Prefrontal areas are certainly involved, but not alone as cognitive function is more a result of circuitry than activity in any specific area(s).

[iNow]

That makes sense. The reason I ask is because we see cortical inhibition of limbic and amydalal areas in non-human animals all of the time. I get that we are different, but I see it more of "cats" are different than "dogs" type of different. I don't think it's as fundamental as some like to imply.

 

It's really more of a pet peeve of mine, something I see as a tired remnant of biblical teaching that man has dominion over nature... I say, nonsense. Man is part of nature, and we are not really all that different.

 

To the original point though, it was my intention to suggest that your argument rested heavily in the idea of executive function and abstraction, both of which I'm confident are not unique to humans.

[Reaper]

It's really more of a pet peeve of mine, something I see as a tired remnant of biblical teaching that man has dominion over nature... I say, nonsense. Man is part of nature, and we are not really all that different.

 

No one was arguing that we were separate from nature.

 

 

To the original point though, it was my intention to suggest that your argument rested heavily in the idea of executive function and abstraction, both of which I'm confident are not unique to humans.

 

Other primates and maybe dolphins probably have the same abilities, but beyond that there really isn't much evidence that other animals have the same mental capabilities. Well, at least here on Earth.....

[iNow]

No one was arguing that we were separate from nature.

I agree, which is why I openly said that it was more of a personal pet peeve than necessarily anything others (like Glider) were saying.

 

 

Other primates and maybe dolphins probably have the same abilities, but beyond that there really isn't much evidence that other animals have the same mental capabilities.

 

And since those are not human, that was exactly my point.

[Reaper]

In fact, it's highly unlikely that there is any one area that makes 'the' difference. Prefrontal areas are certainly involved, but not alone as cognitive function is more a result of circuitry than activity in any specific area(s).

 

There's also the fact that we are upright and have thumbs....

[Glider]

That makes sense. The reason I ask is because we see cortical inhibition of limbic and amydalal areas in non-human animals all of the time. I get that we are different, but I see it more of "cats" are different than "dogs" type of different. I don't think it's as fundamental as some like to imply.

I'd agree with that. It doesn't take a large physical difference to make a large functional difference.

 

It's really more of a pet peeve of mine, something I see as a tired remnant of biblical teaching that man has dominion over nature... I say, nonsense. Man is part of nature, and we are not really all that different.

Genetically no, we're not. But we are highly specialised. We evolved down a unique path (as did so many other species). That makes us functionally very different, but physically, not so different.

 

I never bought into the old 'Human dominion over nature' thing anyway.

 

To the original point though, it was my intention to sugges that your argument rested heavily in the idea of executive function and abstraction, both of which I'm confident are not unique to humans.

I think abstraction and the concomitant use of mental symbolism probably is. But I also think it's a question of degree rather than a dichotomy.

 

It is unique to humans at the level humans have displayed it for at least the last 30,000 - 40,000 years or so (i.e. for which we have archaeological evidence in the form of carvings and paintings) and probably a lot longer, up to 350,000 years ago (See here). But that's not to say all other species are completely devoid of the ability to abstract reality in some way, or are at least moving down that path.

 

mental abstraction and symolic thought require language and the resulting 'internal dialogue' that all humans have. It's a bit 'chicken and the egg' though. Did the development of language result in the ability to abstract reality and represent it in symbolic form, or did those abilities drive the need to express them and thus the development of abstract language?

 

There's also the fact that we are upright and have thumbs....

It all helps.

[thedarkshade]

I've never really had problems like this, but sometimes I really have reasons to go insane (like today)!

 

One of the classes I most hate is romantic literature. If there is anything in the whole world I would like to get rid of, is this damn fu(*ing subject. I don't know why I have to take it though. So I was having this class of literature today, and our professor decided to move on to some new books and unfortunately only few of us had those books. I sit in a desk with two other students and one of them had the book. The professor told us the read what we had to, and in about 20 minutes to explain it! Doll, but nothing hard really! She (Prof..) was really nervous, probably problems at home, and all the time she was screaming and criticizing! While reading that lesson, there was something I didn't really understand so I was asking my other friend to explain that to me and there she came, she caught us talking and threw us both out of the class. But not only that, she broke our behavioral mark, gave us some extra homework and put as a 1 (1 is the worst mark we get here). Now how is that supposed to happen????

 

OK, we were talking, which was about the subject of the class, and is that a reason to get kicked out of the class? But let's say that is. Is that a reason to get a 1??? Damn man, I was so nervous. How could this happen at a modern college where the educational system is thought to be ultra-modern? I really really hope I'm not going to do anything stupid, but things like this really piss me off man! Is there any advice of what should I do? Keep reading like a moron (which I don't intend to) or ask for apology for not doing anything?

 

LITERATURE SUCKS MAN!!!!!

[Mr Skeptic]

thedarkshade, you might consider reporting the teacher to the relevant authorities. If several people are complaining about her, it is likely she will be replaced. You do have to make sure that her disciplinary actions were undeserved, as I'd imagine that "romantic literature" has potential for many tangents some of which may be offensive.

 

Or, you could see if you could switch to a class with a different teacher.

 

What college was that at?

[thedarkshade]

thedarkshade, you might consider reporting the teacher to the relevant authorities. If several people are complaining about her, it is likely she will be replaced. You do have to make sure that her disciplinary actions were undeserved, as I'd imagine that "romantic literature" has potential for many tangents some of which may be offensive.

 

Or, you could see if you could switch to a class with a different teacher.

 

What college was that at?

I thought of that, but that would only rise more hate in her for me, so I guess I'll just wait and see what happens with my marks!

 

It's called Cambridge College (not the real one)!

[Phi for All]

I really really hope I'm not going to do anything stupid, but things like this really piss me off man!

I think it's inappropriate for a college professor to treat her students like they were still in high school, but if you do something stupid about it maybe she was right. Be the bigger person and handle this through the proper channels. Maybe that's the real lesson here.

 

 

And don't knock romantic literature. Whispering equations into a girl's ear doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think.

[thedarkshade]

I think it's inappropriate for a college professor to treat her students like they were still in high school, but if you do something stupid about it maybe she was right. Be the bigger person and handle this through the proper channels. Maybe that's the real lesson here.

But what's driving me mad about this is the fact that personal problems of professors are influencing in school's flow of educational system. This is not right! Someone has to stand up for this because it's not the first time.

 

 

And don't knock romantic literature. Whispering equations into a girl's ear doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think.

So I guess money will be my only choice!

[iNow]

But what's driving me mad about this is the fact that personal problems of professors are influencing in school's flow of educational system. This is not right! Someone has to stand up for this because it's not the first time.

Welcome to the real world, shade. Suck it up and deal, and take responsibilities for your own actions. You were, after all, talking in class. The subject of said conversation is not relevant.

 

 

So I guess money will be my only choice!

Money is enough to get laid, but it's not enough to get loved. While getting laid is important, you'll learn with age which of those two options is MORE important.