human fallacy

[dingette]

What is your point, Athena? Is it that humans are essentially just domesticated wild animals, so criminal or immoral behaviour is little more than predictable consequence of an inability to rise above our baser instincts?

Although there's no disputing the fact that we are animals, we are intelligent animals with the ability to comprehend and comply with societal norms, laws and mores. In addition, we also have insight and a conscience; the ability to understand that our words and actions have the potential to effect others negatively.

Raised with wolves, these children adapted to their environment - howling as a form of communication, same form of movement (all fours), pack order, etc - their survival depended on their ability to conform to the behaviours of a completely different species, and the fact that they could, leaves us with no question as to the ability of humans to conform to their environment and community expectations, and no excuses if they can't or won't.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: dingette Raised with wolves, these children adapted to their environment - howling as a form of communication, same form of movement (all fours), pack order, etc - their survival depended on their ability to conform to the behaviours of a completely different species, and the fact that they could, leaves us with no question as to the ability of humans to conform to their environment and community expectations, and no excuses if they can't or won't.

But the question which I expressed and wondered if somebody (particularly woman) could bring up (teach walking, talking... etc) a newly born animal's offspring of other specie, exactly in the same manner as her own child....would that animal on growing could adapt human behavior i.e. behave, walk and talk like humans ?????!!!!!! Is it not ???

The way those two girls adapted the wolves behavior !!!

[dingette]

This would only be possible if the animal had a level of intelligence equal or close to that of humans, Kuldeep. It would have to not only comprehend that it's survival depended on it's ability to adapt, but be capable of human behaviours.

[Athena]

Quote by: dingette What is your point, Athena? Is it that humans are essentially just domesticated wild animals, so criminal or immoral behaviour is little more than predictable consequence of an inability to rise above our baser instincts? Although there's no disputing the fact that we are animals, we are intelligent animals with the ability to comprehend and comply with societal norms, laws and mores. In addition, we also have insight and a conscience; the ability to understand that our words and actions have the potential to effect others negatively. Raised with wolves, these children adapted to their environment - howling as a form of communication, same form of movement (all fours), pack order, etc - their survival depended on their ability to conform to the behaviours of a completely different species, and the fact that they could, leaves us with no question as to the ability of humans to conform to their environment and community expectations, and no excuses if they can't or won't.

The adaptability of the children raised by wolves, ends at a relatively early age. Once past the early formative years, they can not adapt to living with humans, and die in captivity. Our ability to learn and comply with social norms is limited, and dependent on what we learn during this plastic stage of development. Once the lessons are solidified in our brain, some of them can never be changed. We can rewrite some of the things we have learned, but not all of them. And the whole point here is, we are what we learn to be.

The purpose for understanding such things is greater justice, much greater tolerance of our differences, and better international relationships. Our humaness depends on what we learn and we need to take care in what we teach. Our justice system based on superstitious notions of being made in the image of God and influenced by another supernatural being, called Satan, or the result of what Adam and Eve ate, is sick! Religious wars based on the same religious noitions of good and evil and God's will, are sick. To acheive our human potential, which is what we can achieve with the power of reason, we must build on truth, and give up our superstitious notions.

[Athena]

Quote by: Objectivist Humans require conceptual knowledge. Animals are perceptual. The brain of an animal takes the information gathered from its senses and integrates it into a percept. It uses the percept, "This tree harms me." "That animal hurts me." "This tastes good." to determine its actions. (NOTE: The animal does not consciously think "this tree harms me" it's a pain/pleasure mechanism that is automatic and subconscious). Humans are conceptual: "Man's sense organs function automatically; man's brain integrates his sense data into percepts automatically; but the process of integrating percepts into concepts—the process of abstraction and of concept formation—is not automatic. The process of concept-formation does not consist merely of grasping a few simple abstractions, such as "chair," "table," "hot," "cold," and of learning to speak. It consists of a method of using one's consciousness, best designated by the term "conceptualizing." It is not a passive state of registering random impressions. It is an actively sustained process of identifying one's impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in one's perceptual material and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions and discovering new answers and expanding one's knowledge into an ever-growing sum. The faculty that directs this process, the faculty that works by means of concepts, is: reason. The process is thinking." Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand A human that lives with animals never learns to use his conceptual power of his brain, yet he is still capable of it.

You have just reduced a lot of confused verbage, to one simple truth that we can work with. Animals and humans are preceptive creatures, and only humans are conceptual creatures as well, and our ability to conceptualize is limited by what we learn.

Thank you so much for this clarification. Now perhaps we can better understand the dramatic change in public education that has turned the democracy of the US upside down.

When we had liberal education, we used the Conceptual Method. The conceptual method is teaching children increasing complex concepts. Text books during this period, told teachers not to focus too much on specifics details, which is technological correctness, but rather focus on the child's understanding of concepts.

When we replaced liberal education with education for technology, we switched to the Behavior Method, which can also be used to trained dogs. The [b]focus is rigidly on technological correctness, exasperating the problem with religious "good and evil thinking", because now answers are right or wrong, and the understanding of personal points of views, based on different experiences is, degraded to being right or wrong. [b] This problem is reflected in these forums.

The culture of the US is so changed, it is no longer the democracy that was defended in two world wars. Now instead of a compassionate and tolerant culture, we have an ego centric and intolerant culture, prepared for war. Instead of having good morals for civilization, we have swtiched to the "Lord of the Flies" playing rules, and our inner cities are plagued with gang wars, while people in high places aren't any better, they just have more money and power. Now only those who can enjoy material abundance, or identify with those who do, have aspects of being civilized- their concept of good and evil is equal to their concept of have's and have not's and being blessd or punished by a monetary God. The secular understanding of being blessed or punished by the God of Abraham.

We are now technologically smart, but are loosing the memory of concepts essential to civilized people. This puts the world in great danger. I am not sure Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand is the correction for this problem. I suspect that book is part of the problem.

[Athena]

Kuldeep, you expressed the difference between lower animals and humans so well, we can easily conceptualize that difference.

Dingette challenges that explanation thusly,

Quote by: dingette This would only be possible if the animal had a level of intelligence equal or close to that of humans, Kuldeep. It would have to not only comprehend that it's survival depended on it's ability to adapt, but be capable of human behaviours.

Might we explore what behaviors are human that distinguish them as different from animals?

A major difference in human behavior has evolved. That is the behavior of living in very large groups, such as cities, and identifying ourselves with large groups such as Christians or Muslims, or Germans or Americans, or Mexicans, etc.. Lower animals share with us social behaviors, but the size of primate groups are limited in number. So were Celtic tribes, and I assume others tribes, limited in number. The size of such natural groups, depends on the skill of leaders, and abundance of resources essential to a species life functions. However, the size of evolved human groups, depends on concepts of what it means to be members of these larger groups. This is the difference between precieved (animal) differences and conceptualized (human) differences.

Hum, we are driving toward the meaning of being human and our relationship with God.

[dingette]

deleted double post

[dingette]

I completely disagree, Athena. Once upon a time our justice system was based on the notion of responsibility for one's own actions, and perhaps that was an direct result of your assertion,
Athena, " Our justice system based on superstitious notions of being made in the image of God and influenced by another supernatural being, called Satan, or the result of what Adam and Eve ate, is sick!" - an expectation that we live good and moral lives, and that those chosing the path of evil, have done just that - chosen that path and must take responsibility for that choice.

Today, however, we routinely accept that that people are, to great extent, a product of their environment, "The purpose for understanding such things is greater justice, much greater tolerance of our differences, and better international relationships". Although this is largely true, it has created a society where criminals routinely walk the streets unpunished for their crimes, and one where we are all expected to make allowances for...and yes, embrace, the type of differences in other people and cultures which have the potential to destabalise ours.

My point is this - for any society to function well, there has to be a clear line in the sand in regard to right and wrong, and the expectation that not only do we all understand the difference between the two, but that those living in within our society, understand that we all have the personal responsibility to adhere to those rules.

When you start blurring the lines, tolerating (and celebrating) great differences, and removing personal responsibility from the equation, chaos ensues - hence, "Instead of having good morals for civilization, we have swtiched to the "Lord of the Flies" playing rules, and our inner cities are plagued with gang wars, while people in high places aren't any better, they just have more money and power."

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Athena [b]We are now technologically smart, but are loosing the memory of concepts essential to civilized people. This puts the world in great danger. I am not sure Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand is the correction for this problem. I suspect that book is part of the problem.

Have you read Virtue of Selfishness? Have you read any Ayn Rand? If not... be careful what you say.

[Athena]

Quote by: dingette I completely disagree, Athena. Once upon a time our justice system was based on the notion of responsibility for one's own actions, and perhaps that was an direct result of your assertion, Athena, " Our justice system based on superstitious notions of being made in the image of God and influenced by another supernatural being, called Satan, or the result of what Adam and Eve ate, is sick!" - an expectation that we live good and moral lives, and that those chosing the path of evil, have done just that - chosen that path and must take responsibility for that choice. Today, however, we routinely accept that that people are, to great extent, a product of their environment, "The purpose for understanding such things is greater justice, much greater tolerance of our differences, and better international relationships". Although this is largely true, it has created a society where criminals routinely walk the streets unpunished for their crimes, and one where we are all expected to make allowances for...and yes, embrace, the type of differences in other people and cultures which have the potential to destabalise ours. My point is this - for any society to function well, there has to be a clear line in the sand in regard to right and wrong, and the expectation that not only do we all understand the difference between the two, but that those living in within our society, understand that we all have the personal responsibility to adhere to those rules. When you start blurring the lines, tolerating (and celebrating) great differences, and removing personal responsibility from the equation, chaos ensues - hence, "Instead of having good morals for civilization, we have swtiched to the "Lord of the Flies" playing rules, and our inner cities are plagued with gang wars, while people in high places aren't any better, they just have more money and power."

I am sorry, I am having such a strong emotional reaction to your argument, that it is difficult for me to be rational at the moment. May be in time you will become familiar with my position on virtues and the importance of moral education, and we won't have such intense conflict. Before humans can do well, they must learn how to do well, and education for technology for military and industrail purpose, is a serious social failure that is destroying our liberty.

Besides stomping your feet and demanding humans be responsible, how do think they learn what that means and how that applies to them?

[dingette]

Quote by: Athena I am sorry, I am having such a strong emotional reaction to your argument, that it is difficult for me to be rational at the moment. May be in time you will become familiar with my position on virtues and the importance of moral education, and we won't have such intense conflict. Before humans can do well, they must learn how to do well, and education for technology for military and industrail purpose, is a serious social failure that is destroying our liberty. Besides stomping your feet and demanding humans be responsible, how do think they learn what that means and how that applies to them?

I believe I have made my position clear, but more importantly, I believe I have offered a reasoned argument for that position. You, however, have just admitted that you are emotional and are having some difficulty with rational thought; this is obvious in your response.

One doesn't need formal education in morality and virtue...laws, mores, and norms make society's position on appropriate behavior is very clear, and frankly, as a parent, the idea of force-feeding children the beliefs of the mindless masses horrifies me. It's enough to contend with society's ridiculous notions of morality and virtue, and teaching my children to think critically about the hypocrisies and gender inequalities which are rampant in our culture without having to undo specific formal education.

[Athena]

Quote by: dingette What is your point, Athena? Is it that humans are essentially just domesticated wild animals, so criminal or immoral behaviour is little more than predictable consequence of an inability to rise above our baser instincts? Although there's no disputing the fact that we are animals, we are intelligent animals with the ability to comprehend and comply with societal norms, laws and mores. In addition, we also have insight and a conscience; the ability to understand that our words and actions have the potential to effect others negatively. Raised with wolves, these children adapted to their environment - howling as a form of communication, same form of movement (all fours), pack order, etc - their survival depended on their ability to conform to the behaviours of a completely different species, and the fact that they could, leaves us with no question as to the ability of humans to conform to their environment and community expectations, and no excuses if they can't or won't.

My point is, because we are animals, we are filled with goodness. Everything we do, we do with good intentions, unless so brain damaged or emotionally disturb, we are incapable of good judgement.

The biggest issue we have in these debates is disagreement over the nature of nature and the nature of man. You wrote of nature and animals in very negative terms. Why did you do that?

Which do you perfer, the belief that are animals and naturally good, or we are born in sin, and can not expected to do well without the help of God, or some humans functioning as God's authority on earth?

Please, note, the humans raised as wolves, die in captivity. We loose our ability to adjust decreases with age. I argue, this scientific fact should result in a more humane and sane criminal justice system. My first son- in- law, will probably never do well on the streets, because he was raised with abuse and institutionalized early in life. He does not have good social skills and he sure isn't learning them in prison. He is a victim who victimizes people, and it is stupid as hell, to hold him in prision again and again, and continue releasing him on the streets, expecting better results. Excepting him to come out of prison ready to join main stream society is stupid, and based on a false idea of what means to be human.

When we hold a false idea of what it means to be human, we make stupid decisions, and what we call justice is not just, or even sane.

[dingette]

My point is, because we are animals, we are filled with goodness. Everything we do, we do with good intentions, unless so brain damaged or emotionally disturb, we are incapable of good judgement.

That's romantic nonsense. Both humans and animals brutally kill for food, to show power or/and dominance, and in some cases in both worlds (human and animal), simply for the sheer thrill of killing.

The biggest issue we have in these debates is disagreement over the nature of nature and the nature of man. You wrote of nature and animals in very negative terms. Why did you do that?

It's not a matter of seeing animals in negative terms, but in realistic terms.

Which do you perfer, the belief that are animals and naturally good, or we are born in sin, and can not expected to do well without the help of God, or some humans functioning as God's authority on earth?

Neither as few things are strictly good or evil, and nor do I believe in a god...any supernatural being which mitigates, removes or explains the wrong doing of humans.

Please, note, the humans raised as wolves, die in captivity. We loose our ability to adjust decreases with age. I argue, this scientific fact should result in a more humane and sane criminal justice system. My first son- in- law, will probably never do well on the streets, because he was raised with abuse and institutionalized early in life. He does not have good social skills and he sure isn't learning them in prison. He is a victim who victimizes people, and it is stupid as hell, to hold him in prision again and again, and continue releasing him on the streets, expecting better results. Excepting him to come out of prison ready to join main stream society is stupid, and based on a false idea of what means to be human.

Personally, I have no interest in his best interests, or of those of the majority of criminals. Their incarceration protects the innocent from injury, pain, suffering and death; there is no need for further explanations or justifications.

When we hold a false idea of what it means to be human, we make stupid decisions, and what we call justice is not just, or even sane.

I don't believe I hold false or idealized notions of what it means to be human.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Kuldeep But the question which I expressed and wondered if somebody (particularly woman) could bring up (teach walking, talking... etc) a newly born animal's offspring of other specie, exactly in the same manner as her own child....would that animal on growing could adapt human behavior i.e. behave, walk and talk like humans ?????!!!!!! Is it not ??? The way those two girls adapted the wolves behavior !!!

Kuldeep,

That expiriment has been done. As I recall it was in the 1950's or 60s when a scientist raised his infant child alongside a chimpanzee that was treated virtually the same as the human child. I don't have the reference handy but do seem to recall the results not turning out well.

I imagine you could find something about that on the web somewhere.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: dingette Today, however, we routinely accept that that people are, to great extent, a product of their environment, "The purpose for understanding such things is greater justice, much greater tolerance of our differences, and better international relationships". Although this is largely true, it has created a society where criminals routinely walk the streets unpunished for their crimes, and one where we are all expected to make allowances for...and yes, embrace, the type of differences in other people and cultures which have the potential to destabalise ours.

And, yet, we have a greater proportion of our population in prison than any other country in the world.

Do you think there might be a disconnect between either what you're saying or the real vs. stated goals of our "criminal justice" system?

Keith

[dingette]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger And, yet, we have a greater proportion of our population in prison than any other country in the world. Do you think there might be a disconnect between either what you're saying or the real vs. stated goals of our "criminal justice" system? Keith

I don't believe it's possible to rehabilitate habitual offenders, so it's my opinion that the criminal justice system isn't to blame. I feel our evolution away from personal responsibility, the removal of parental rights to discipline children, and the increasing tolerance of aberrant behavior is largely responsible for the rising criminality within our society.

[Athena]

Quote by: dingette My point is, because we are animals, we are filled with goodness. Everything we do, we do with good intentions, unless so brain damaged or emotionally disturb, we are incapable of good judgement. That's romantic nonsense. Both humans and animals brutally kill for food, to show power or/and dominance, and in some cases in both worlds (human and animal), simply for the sheer thrill of killing. The biggest issue we have in these debates is disagreement over the nature of nature and the nature of man. You wrote of nature and animals in very negative terms. Why did you do that? It's not a matter of seeing animals in negative terms, but in realistic terms. Which do you perfer, the belief that are animals and naturally good, or we are born in sin, and can not expected to do well without the help of God, or some humans functioning as God's authority on earth? Neither as few things are strictly good or evil, and nor do I believe in a god...any supernatural being which mitigates, removes or explains the wrong doing of humans. Please, note, the humans raised as wolves, die in captivity. We loose our ability to adjust decreases with age. I argue, this scientific fact should result in a more humane and sane criminal justice system. My first son- in- law, will probably never do well on the streets, because he was raised with abuse and institutionalized early in life. He does not have good social skills and he sure isn't learning them in prison. He is a victim who victimizes people, and it is stupid as hell, to hold him in prision again and again, and continue releasing him on the streets, expecting better results. Excepting him to come out of prison ready to join main stream society is stupid, and based on a false idea of what means to be human. Personally, I have no interest in his best interests, or of those of the majority of criminals. Their incarceration protects the innocent from injury, pain, suffering and death; there is no need for further explanations or justifications. When we hold a false idea of what it means to be human, we make stupid decisions, and what we call justice is not just, or even sane. I don't believe I hold false or idealized notions of what it means to be human.

This needs to go in another, but incarcerating people is extremely expensive, and does not prevent crime, and is only a temporary protection as these people are released, and they are really messed up when they are released!!!. The system is really insane from a tax payers point of view, but unfortunately, tax payers tend to have a knee jerk response and don't want to be bothered thinking about the problem. If anyone wants to discuss the prison system, please start a thread.
This one is about our nature, and it is our nature to choose good, unless we are damaged.

I think focusing on the fact that some animals and humans, "brutally kill for food, to show power or/and dominance, and in some cases in both worlds (human and animal), simply for the sheer thrill of killing". and neglecting to mention they care for their young, and to varying degrees care for each other, is a negative view of nature, because it is not balanced with the good. Seeing animals and humans as caring for their young and each other, is not being romatic, but realisitc. Within nature there are rules. A wounded animal or human is dangerous. Threatening an animal/human or its young, is dangerous. We all kill to eat, because that is essential to life.

I am a hunter by nature. There is nothing I love better than searching second hand book stores for a book I can treasure. This intrinsic pleasure in the hunt is directly tied to my evolved urge to hunt for plants that taste good or ones that have healing power.

Among my books are ones on criminal behaviors, and some explain brutal warfare, and some explain torture associated with sexual pleasure and concepts of boosting male strength. I have no doubt that individuals, and whole nations, can become perverted. If I were hunting for potential victims instead of books, I would say this is a perversion of my nature. We would not have civilizations if it were not in our nature to act civilized.

You might not be Christian, but I think your focus on animals and humans sometimes being brutal killers, is a Christian influenced consciousness. I think your response to incarcerating humans, is not well thought out, but again, the result of Christian influence, send them to hell and forget about them.

Perhaps you should work on a few idealized notions of what it means to be human, because it is that idealization that separates us from the animals. There is nothing wrong with considering what the ideal is and how it can be acheived. That is what humans do and it is what makes human. That is no more romatic than believing we can make for ourselves a good life, cut out of the wilderness, and taking the steps to acheive that, or believing we can build a railroad across a continent and taking the steps to do that. Let go of the brutal notions, and image some really good ones, because as we think it, so we make it.

[Athena]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger And, yet, we have a greater proportion of our population in prison than any other country in the world. Do you think there might be a disconnect between either what you're saying or the real vs. stated goals of our "criminal justice" system?

Quoted by: Dingette I don't believe it's possible to rehabilitate habitual offenders, so it's my opinion that the criminal justice system isn't to blame. I feel our evolution away from personal responsibility, the removal of parental rights to discipline children, and the increasing tolerance of aberrant behavior is largely responsible for the rising criminality within our society

.

This disagreement came up in a discussion of our human nature.

The problem with our criminal justice system, is it is careless of why a person committed a crime. Recently, in the US our criminal justice has gotten much worse, because it has included acts of bad judgment as crimes worthy of criminal punishment, and it also treats children as adults. These decisions are not based on science, or human compassion, but reflect a growing intolerance, and I believe this one of the results of education for technology, which presents the world in colors of black or white, right or wrong.

The Mongols, killed people for lying or stealing. Genghis Khan thought the cities bred immoraity, because city life, with its division of rich and poor, led to stealing and lying. When considering why someone has committed a crime, we might look at the social causes of lying and stealing.

In our culture, cannibolism is taboo, and we will punish anyone who eats humans harshly. Rape has not always been so taboo. I had a college professor who taught his classes that women who are raped, want to be raped. Honestly, men have held this opinion, and commonly judges held this opinion. We like to believe people who are victimized by nature/God or other humans, somehow deserve to be victimized. When a man who claimed he is dying of cancer was attacked by posters on volconvo, the owner defended the attackers, on the grounds the person being attacked deserved to be attacked because he was lying about having cancer. How we react to the wrong doing of another, depends not sole on the wrong, but also how we precieve the degree of wrong doing, and if may be the vicitim is the cause of the wrong doing.

Personally, I think anyone who eats another human being has a serious emotional/mental problem, and needs to be treated as a sick person, not a criminal. We know without doubt, children who are abused are prone to be abusers in adulthood. Some humans can correct their behavior problems and others can't. We need to determine who can and can not change, and then put those who can change into treatment, and get real about those who can't change, and keep them in protective custody for the rest of their lives.

Whenever a person does a wrong, the person should have a way to correct the wrong, or compensate for the wrong. Incarcerating everyone who does a wrong, is extremely expensive, causes a lot of suffering and pain to families, and is not even a reasonable way to manage wrong doing.

Alcohol and illegal drugs, are major contributers to criminal behaviors. I do not think we should legalize substances that alter our judgment and then treat someone with an alter judgment as a criminal. However, they must be held accountable and pay restitution, and possibly be held in protective custody if addiction is a problem. This can be done with electronic bracelets and does not have to mean incarceration at tax payers expense.

Most antisocial social behaviors I witness, are a failure to the prepare the young for life. Education for technology for industrial and military purpose, does not prepare the young for life. Liberal education prepares the young for life. And of course there are retarded people who need special consideration.

During a recession when we can not assimulate the young into mainstream society fast enough, social problems to sky rocket!
There are times when not prostituting oneself, or not stealing, or not lying, is not the best survival decision. There is a saying, societies get the crimes they deserve.

Any comments?

[dingette]

This one is about our nature, and it is our nature to choose good, unless we are damaged.

I think focusing on the fact that some animals and humans, "brutally kill for food, to show power or/and dominance, and in some cases in both worlds (human and animal), simply for the sheer thrill of killing". and neglecting to mention they care for their young, and to varying degrees care for each other, is a negative view of nature, because it is not balanced with the good.

You speak of balance, yet you say that it's our nature to do only good, and it's only those damaged in some way who are capable of evil. I make the point that balance is just that...a balance of both good and evil. I haven't focused on the negative because there is no good, but because of your insistence there is only good.

[dingette]

You might not be Christian, but I think your focus on animals and humans sometimes being brutal killers, is a Christian influenced consciousness. I think your response to incarcerating humans, is not well thought out, but again, the result of Christian influence, send them to hell and forget about them.

I'm afraid that's rubbish; my thoughts aren't influenced by notion of Original Sin, but by simply the nature of humans/animals. We (human and animal) maim and kill for reasons other than basic survival - dominance, power, and just for the sheer fun of it (as mentioned).