https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/471367
The writer queried my use of the term human nature, questioning whether it exists. . . . — Jack Cummins
Of course, Human Nature doesn't "exist" in a materialistic concrete sense. It's a generalization, and an abstraction. So, it's not a testable empirical "thing" to be studied by scientists. But it's certainly amenable to philosophical study. "The writer" must be a hard Materialist, who doesn't accept immaterial things, such as Minds, to be Real. For them, the only things that "exist" are Atoms & Void. But Unfortunately, speculations on generalizations & universals are always somebody's Opinion, not hard facts. What's yours?
According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
TPF : Human Nature 2
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life. — Jack Cummins
Are you familiar with the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico? It's a think-tank and research center for Complex Adaptive Systems. And that includes humans. It consists of a variety of physical scientists, but their common approach to their subjects is Holism, rather than Reductionism. A more technical term for that kind of science is "Systems Theory".
You seem to be familiar with Fritjof Capra, and his book, The Systems View of Life. But a more recent advocate of non-reductive science is Stuart Kaufman. His 2016 book, Humanity in a Creative Universe, may be considered a technical treatise on Human Nature -- covering subjects like Free Will, and the Mind-Body problem. Like Capra, he is not afraid to risk his considerable scientific credentials, on taboo topics for reductive materialistic attitudes. And his book frequently crosses the line between hard science and soft philosophy. So, while it may be interesting for the philosophically inclined, some may criticize its forays into imagination and speculation -- to call it "fact free". And they may complain that Holism opens the door to Mysticsm. But, I'm willing to take that chance, in order to put human nature under the microscope.
Stuart Kauffman : We really did create a new science. It seems "fact free," as John Maynard Smith said, because we were finding not efficient cause laws, but kinds of what might be called just math or formal cause laws.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... mysteries/
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
Just to clarify. I’m skeptical that human nature exists. That is, I’m doubtful that there is some universal trait that we all share, and that is immutable. I think this because nurture seems to affect all traits, thereby making all traits mutable. However, thinking of humans as having a nature may be useful to help us understand ourselves. It may be a useful fiction, at best. — Pinprick
I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. — Jack Cummins
The human mind instinctively looks for common features (general traits) in its environment, as an aid to categorizing the relationships of parts to wholes. Without the short-cut of "chunking" categories, we would have to deal with each new person or thing like babies, who have never seen anything "like" it before. But, like all shortcuts, Generalizing from a few individuals to a whole group, can lead to Stereotyping (over-generalization). Classification allows us to pre-judge based on past experience. But, that same prejudice can lead us astray, if our sample is too small or biased by unique circumstances.
Assigning common traits to a class, based on limited experience with individuals, is a "useful fiction" for most purposes. But it can also result in Racism or Speciesism. So we probably should put our "Types" in quotes, to remind us that the rule-of-thumb may or may not apply in this particular case. Generalizations are always Approximations. The science of Sociology has a broader scope than Psychology, in that it attempts to understand Human-Nature-in-general rather than the peculiarities of individual humans. Hence, there is no need to deny the existence of "Human Nature", or "Race", as a crude concept, as long as we don't apply that abbreviated understanding in critical situations, where inaccuracies in prejudices can mislead us. Skepticism toward our own "truths" can help us avoid leaping to erroneous conclusions.
Generalizations and Stereotypes : When do generalizations move into stereotypes? Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..
https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2 ... types.html
I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. — Jack Cummins
The human mind instinctively looks for common features (general traits) in its environment, as an aid to categorizing the relationships of parts to wholes. Without the short-cut of "chunking" categories, we would have to deal with each new person or thing like babies, who have never seen anything "like" it before. But, like all shortcuts, Generalizing from a few individuals to a whole group, can lead to Stereotyping (over-generalization). Classification allows us to pre-judge based on past experience. But, that same prejudice can lead us astray, if our sample is too small or biased by unique circumstances.
Assigning common traits to a class, based on limited experience with individuals, is a "useful fiction" for most purposes. But it can also result in Racism or Speciesism. So we probably should put our "Types" in quotes, to remind us that the rule-of-thumb may or may not apply in this particular case. Generalizations are always Approximations. The science of Sociology has a broader scope than Psychology, in that it attempts to understand Human-Nature-in-general rather than the peculiarities of individual humans. Hence, there is no need to deny the existence of "Human Nature", or "Race", as a crude concept, as long as we don't apply that abbreviated understanding in critical situations, where inaccuracies in prejudices can mislead us. Skepticism toward our own "truths" can help us avoid leaping to erroneous conclusions.
Generalizations and Stereotypes : When do generalizations move into stereotypes? Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..
https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2 ... types.html
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
I think science is full of materialistic explanations of our human nature and it most certainly is testable and empirical. Take for example what we know of hormones. Hormones strongly effect how we feel and what we do. — Athena
Yes. Materialistic Science has learned a lot about human physiology, much of which which we share with our ape cousins, who are quite clever as animals go. But Human Nature, as a philosophical enterprise, is mostly about how humans differ from animals. For example, the age-old question of non-empirical Souls. If there is no such thing, how do we account for the gap in reasoning power, which, seems to be our only significant advantage over more instinctive creatures? Even apes have hands.
Based on empirical evidence, our physiological advantage seems to be rather minor. But in terms of evolutionary success, humans have created a whole new form of Evolution : world-conquering Culture, which progresses much faster than physical evolution. A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority. Yet, some think it's our Animal Nature, including irrational hormones, that holds us back morally. While others think it's our over-weening intellectual arrogance that gets us into trouble. Both seem to be involved in Human Nature.
The Gap -- The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals : . . . psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose.
https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Science-Sepa ... 0465030149
Yes. Materialistic Science has learned a lot about human physiology, much of which which we share with our ape cousins, who are quite clever as animals go. But Human Nature, as a philosophical enterprise, is mostly about how humans differ from animals. For example, the age-old question of non-empirical Souls. If there is no such thing, how do we account for the gap in reasoning power, which, seems to be our only significant advantage over more instinctive creatures? Even apes have hands.
Based on empirical evidence, our physiological advantage seems to be rather minor. But in terms of evolutionary success, humans have created a whole new form of Evolution : world-conquering Culture, which progresses much faster than physical evolution. A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority. Yet, some think it's our Animal Nature, including irrational hormones, that holds us back morally. While others think it's our over-weening intellectual arrogance that gets us into trouble. Both seem to be involved in Human Nature.
The Gap -- The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals : . . . psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose.
https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Science-Sepa ... 0465030149
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
What does prejudice have to do with our nature? — Athena
The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book.
Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are- ... tory-36829
Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california- ... lind-arent
The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book.
Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are- ... tory-36829
Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california- ... lind-arent
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
What’s with this fascination I read so often of reference to brain size being so BIG?! — JackBRotten
Note that I mentioned both our Brain Size (quantity) and our Brain Complexity (quality) as partial explanations for human dominance in the world. If you think ants are a dominant species, they don't even come close to the overwhelming numerical superiority and habitat ubiquity of single-cell organisms. But then, we have antibiotics and vaccines that help to even the score. :joke:
"A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority."
Note that I mentioned both our Brain Size (quantity) and our Brain Complexity (quality) as partial explanations for human dominance in the world. If you think ants are a dominant species, they don't even come close to the overwhelming numerical superiority and habitat ubiquity of single-cell organisms. But then, we have antibiotics and vaccines that help to even the score. :joke:
"A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority."
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
The one thing that truly separates humans from all other life is perception. — JackBRotten
And how do you account for our greater "perception"?
I suspect that you meant "conception". Human perception is widely acknowledged to be inferior to that of most animals. But, our ability to conceive ideas and to make detailed plans, seems to be our primary advantage over even those animals with larger brains and sharper senses. Sometimes size matters. But complexity and coordination make the difference that makes the qualitative difference between human nature and animal nature.
Perception : the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
Conception : the forming or devising of a plan or idea.
the Most Complex Object in the Universe : The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.
And how do you account for our greater "perception"?
I suspect that you meant "conception". Human perception is widely acknowledged to be inferior to that of most animals. But, our ability to conceive ideas and to make detailed plans, seems to be our primary advantage over even those animals with larger brains and sharper senses. Sometimes size matters. But complexity and coordination make the difference that makes the qualitative difference between human nature and animal nature.
Perception : the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
Conception : the forming or devising of a plan or idea.
the Most Complex Object in the Universe : The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/508300
Human nature 3
Anyway, I am wondering today if there is such a thing as a common human psychology in general? — Gregory
Modern psychology has been searching for the common denominator -- or the "essence" -- of the human Mind/Body for several generations. But they typically avoid resorting to the simplistic notion of a spiritual Soul. There are many theories, but little agreement. Ironically there seems to be some parallel between Emotions and Tastes. Strangely, one synonym for "Flavor" is "essence, spirit". :joke:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flavor
Passions of the Soul :
All human behaviour can be broken down into four basic emotions, according to research by Glasgow University.
The study has challenged a commonly-held belief that there are six basic emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-26019586
A matter of taste :
Western food research, for example, has long been dominated by the four "basic tastes" of sweet, bitter, sour and salty.. . . .
Humans May Taste at Least 6 Flavors
https://www.livescience.com/17684-sixth ... taste.html
Humans, Nature, and Ethics
Nonetheless, out of this overall general understanding of the range of traits possible given the human genome emerges what is distinctively human, which Fukuyama calls “the human essence” or “Factor X.” This is not itself a trait but an emergent property that depends on the entirety of human traits. Thus, though Fukuyama holds that human nature is definable, he does not hold that we can easily articulate human nature.
https://www.humansandnature.org/humans- ... and-ethics
The 3 Natures of Man :
[Man's] nature is threefold, animal, human and divine
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +or+animal
Human nature 3
Anyway, I am wondering today if there is such a thing as a common human psychology in general? — Gregory
Modern psychology has been searching for the common denominator -- or the "essence" -- of the human Mind/Body for several generations. But they typically avoid resorting to the simplistic notion of a spiritual Soul. There are many theories, but little agreement. Ironically there seems to be some parallel between Emotions and Tastes. Strangely, one synonym for "Flavor" is "essence, spirit". :joke:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flavor
Passions of the Soul :
All human behaviour can be broken down into four basic emotions, according to research by Glasgow University.
The study has challenged a commonly-held belief that there are six basic emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-26019586
A matter of taste :
Western food research, for example, has long been dominated by the four "basic tastes" of sweet, bitter, sour and salty.. . . .
Humans May Taste at Least 6 Flavors
https://www.livescience.com/17684-sixth ... taste.html
Humans, Nature, and Ethics
Nonetheless, out of this overall general understanding of the range of traits possible given the human genome emerges what is distinctively human, which Fukuyama calls “the human essence” or “Factor X.” This is not itself a trait but an emergent property that depends on the entirety of human traits. Thus, though Fukuyama holds that human nature is definable, he does not hold that we can easily articulate human nature.
https://www.humansandnature.org/humans- ... and-ethics
The 3 Natures of Man :
[Man's] nature is threefold, animal, human and divine
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +or+animal
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
What I am aiming at in this thread is whether the fundamental features of the human psyche can even be definitely determined and codified. Genes change and if it's impossible to determine human nature from philosophy, psychology seems to be only capable of general vague suggestions — Gregory
I suspect that most questions about "human nature" are looking for properties ("fundamental features") that are different from "animal nature". But as mammals, we share most of our emotional actions & reactions with the majority of warm-blooded animals. So, what's distinctive for humans has traditionally been attributed to our "angelic nature", which is supposedly the ability to govern emotions with reason. But even that quality of human nature is controversial. So, I doubt you'll find a consensus, even among experts.
Theoretically, if humans are eventually replaced by robots or cyborgs, they would or could come closer to the "ideal" of purely rational beings, as exemplified by Mister Spock and Commander Data of Star Trek fame. That's an interesting hypothesis. But, would life be worth living without emotions? Again, consensus will be elusive. Because emotions motivate us to do both positive and negative acts. So, our complicated urges & feelings are both good and bad for us. Yet, maybe it's the challenging balancing act that makes life interesting and worth living --- if only to see what happens next. Hence, my BothAnd philosophy : which seeks to balance opposing motivations into a pleasant harmony, without losing the the positive aspects of our animal nature.
How Much Better Life Would Be Without Emotions :
All my decisions would be based on logic and mathematical precision and all my actions would be in accordance with a well-crafted plan.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... t-emotions
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. Dynamic Harmony.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Angel Nature : purely rational; emotionless, genderless, hence perfect obedient servants.
Robot = slave
PS___In discussions with "intuitive" (feeling driven) people, who prefer to fly by the seat of their pants, I have been accused of being too rational, in that I try to keep my life neat & orderly. What they don't realize is that my calm rational demeanor is a constant dynamic balancing act.
I suspect that most questions about "human nature" are looking for properties ("fundamental features") that are different from "animal nature". But as mammals, we share most of our emotional actions & reactions with the majority of warm-blooded animals. So, what's distinctive for humans has traditionally been attributed to our "angelic nature", which is supposedly the ability to govern emotions with reason. But even that quality of human nature is controversial. So, I doubt you'll find a consensus, even among experts.
Theoretically, if humans are eventually replaced by robots or cyborgs, they would or could come closer to the "ideal" of purely rational beings, as exemplified by Mister Spock and Commander Data of Star Trek fame. That's an interesting hypothesis. But, would life be worth living without emotions? Again, consensus will be elusive. Because emotions motivate us to do both positive and negative acts. So, our complicated urges & feelings are both good and bad for us. Yet, maybe it's the challenging balancing act that makes life interesting and worth living --- if only to see what happens next. Hence, my BothAnd philosophy : which seeks to balance opposing motivations into a pleasant harmony, without losing the the positive aspects of our animal nature.
How Much Better Life Would Be Without Emotions :
All my decisions would be based on logic and mathematical precision and all my actions would be in accordance with a well-crafted plan.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... t-emotions
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. Dynamic Harmony.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Angel Nature : purely rational; emotionless, genderless, hence perfect obedient servants.
Robot = slave
PS___In discussions with "intuitive" (feeling driven) people, who prefer to fly by the seat of their pants, I have been accused of being too rational, in that I try to keep my life neat & orderly. What they don't realize is that my calm rational demeanor is a constant dynamic balancing act.
Re: TPF : Human Nature 2
I think I can reason without being in spiritual infinities. — Gregory
Does that mean you think Human Reasoning is a strictly material phenomenon? If so, can you provide empirical evidence to show how material processes generate the interrelated ideas that we call Reasons?
In my own thesis, Reasons in the mind do indeed have a material substrate. But it's the invisible interactions of Enforming (to enform = to cause to exist ; to create ; to give meaningful form to) that produce the immaterial mental conceptual constructs we call "Reasons". Unfortunately, X-rays & MRIs are not able to photograph those ideas (information networks) in the brain, because they are not physical objects, (perhaps, more like geometrical angular relationships & ratios). Instead, we only know them by subjective introspection. I wouldn't call those imaginary images "spiritual", because of the religious implications. So, I refer to them merely as "Informational". Hence, they are forms of immaterial Enformation, which is not a thing, but a causal process.
Moreover, those mind-to-mind processes (meme propagation) are, as far as I know, found only in the finite real world. The only "infinities" related to the process of Enforming would be properties of the logically necessary First Cause, which for illustrative reasons I call "The Enformer". Or you could call it "The Great Reason".
Meme : a unit of cultural information, as a concept, belief, or practice, that spreads from person to person in a way analogous to the transmission of genes.
Does that mean you think Human Reasoning is a strictly material phenomenon? If so, can you provide empirical evidence to show how material processes generate the interrelated ideas that we call Reasons?
In my own thesis, Reasons in the mind do indeed have a material substrate. But it's the invisible interactions of Enforming (to enform = to cause to exist ; to create ; to give meaningful form to) that produce the immaterial mental conceptual constructs we call "Reasons". Unfortunately, X-rays & MRIs are not able to photograph those ideas (information networks) in the brain, because they are not physical objects, (perhaps, more like geometrical angular relationships & ratios). Instead, we only know them by subjective introspection. I wouldn't call those imaginary images "spiritual", because of the religious implications. So, I refer to them merely as "Informational". Hence, they are forms of immaterial Enformation, which is not a thing, but a causal process.
Moreover, those mind-to-mind processes (meme propagation) are, as far as I know, found only in the finite real world. The only "infinities" related to the process of Enforming would be properties of the logically necessary First Cause, which for illustrative reasons I call "The Enformer". Or you could call it "The Great Reason".
Meme : a unit of cultural information, as a concept, belief, or practice, that spreads from person to person in a way analogous to the transmission of genes.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests