Homo Sapians: Part of Nature or Above it

[rmcrobertson]

Several problems:

First, bigger is not necessarily better. Using a crude measure like, "Brain volume," (and just incidentally, those studies of volume appear to have been both flawed and racist, since a big aim was to point out the intellectual superiority of white people) simply doesn't tell you anything about the mind. Again, you're collapsing categories.

Second, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with refusing to make sweeping theories in advance of adequate data. In fact, it's a helluva lot more scientifically accurate NOT to generalize from simple and incomplete data. We haven't adequate data on little things like how the brain works; we don't know how smart our ancestors were or weren't.

Third, the way you've written it, tool use caused intellectual development, not the other way round.

Fourth: sorry, but I take notes about, 'alpha males," etc., as symptomatic of what the agenda really is: to justify cultural, historical and linguistic developments that led to things like patriarchy.

Fifth: still not gettin' what the heck SETI has to do with this. And neither you nor I have the slightest idea whether these cultures--if they are even cultures in our terms--have art or anything else.

Sixth: there's a very simple analogy available. A computer isn't just its hardware either.

Personally, I'm a materialist. Of course such positions can hide all sorts of unanalyzed notions, but then, so can the notion of elevating biology into The Grand Unified Pooh-Bah Theory of Everything.

 

[Rich Parsons]

First, bigger is not necessarily better. Using a crude measure like, "Brain volume," (and just incidentally, those studies of volume appear to have been both flawed and racist, since a big aim was to point out the intellectual superiority of white people) simply doesn't tell you anything about the mind. Again, you're collapsing categories.

Robert,

Two things about size. If larger is better than are Dolphins and Porpoises above humans? As they have larger frontal lobes and brains overall than humans do.

I have also heard, that it is not the size (of the brain) but how you use it (The Brain).

Fourth: sorry, but I take notes about, 'alpha males," etc., as symptomatic of what the agenda really is: to justify cultural, historical and linguistic developments that led to things like patriarchy.

The reason I brought up Alpha males was not to make the point of patriarchy, it was that animals have instinct and follow a leader based upon instinctual survival.

Humans, do not have the same traits, in my mind or opinion. I did not mean it the way you mentioned.


:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Personally, I'm a materialist. Of course such positions can hide all sorts of unanalyzed notions, but then, so can the notion of elevating biology into The Grand Unified Pooh-Bah Theory of Everything.

Why the reluctance to make the step? Are you so certain that the amount of information out there to support the assumption is insufficient? The field of biologic anthropology is dense with the amount of data on this subject and they regularly make such assumptions. Look at other theories that explain who we are, they all fail unless they begin to look at our biology.

I'm not sure what you mean by collapsing catagories. So, I can only shoot from the hip at the rest. As far as brain volume goes, biologic anthropology has been using this as an evolutionary yard stick for years. Our development as a species is characterized by our brain development. It is the feature that sets us apart from other primates. What it tells us about the mind is that larger brains have the capacity for great complexity.

I think Rich's comments on this were right on. What about elephants and dolphins? They certainly have larger brains. I would wager that our brains have a higher density of connection though.

Consequently the old theories said that brain size developed first and then tools. These became known as the manly ape theories and were more palatable to the scientists of that time. Then scientists found tools and small brains, so the order WAS reversed recently. New devolopments led to increases in brain size as our brains learned to better use the tool. This effectively dethroned the Manly Ape theories, knocking homo sapians from their supernatural perch.

Do you really think that what we have developed is so unique? I bring up SETI and the Drake equation to hint at the possibility of coevolution.

How can we be more then our hardware?

 

[rmcrobertson]

What, "step?" Why is it an advance to think that human beings are explicable solely in terms of their biology? That seems a lot like ignoring most of our history--at least, the written part.

It is a fantasy to believe that we, "have," to be one way or another, simply because of evolution, or DNA, or what have you. And I find this conversation interesting in large part because this fantasy can be seen for what it is: an attempt to ground capitalism, and patriarchy too for that matter, upon a reductionist concept of biology.

Moreover, some of the science you're citing isn't science. I mentioned the stuff on brain size, because if you go back and look, most of that, "research," was racist in the extreme...little better than phrenology.

Yes, I've read some arguments about sheer size o'brain, and brain-to-body-weight ratios. And what I read all says, oops, too simplistic. Among other things, there's the fact that good old Albert Einstein had an average-sized brain. So, unlike other areas of speculation, in this area size ain't all that big a deal.

Again (and with specific apologies to Rich for my over-reading), there's nothing supernatural about it. And, I'm at a loss to see how you get a claim that human beings are unique in all the universe out of what I wrote.

Let me be explicit. HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS UNMEDIATED BY LANGUAGE, CULTURE, AND HISTORY. We are, "always already," encoded in such terms.

The biologistic arguments have, as you probably already know, a long and somewhat ugly history: look up the book, "Bone Wars," check out Galton's weird, "g," factor, look at Cyril Burt's "work," on the heritability of intelligence.

And, you might want to consider the consequences of accepting the "pure biology," theory.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Again (and with specific apologies to Rich for my over-reading)

Thank You, NO hard feelings, as I did not explain in detail the first time .

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Please forgive me for chopping up this post... :asian:

What, "step?" Why is it an advance to think that human beings are explicable solely in terms of their biology? That seems a lot like ignoring most of our history--at least, the written part.

It is an advance because we will have finally stripped away the metaphysical viels that cloud our reason. We will see ourselves for what we really are. Beautifully evolved organisms connected to the environment, shaped by that environment and part of a larger system - never separate.

It is a fantasy to believe that we, "have," to be one way or another, simply because of evolution, or DNA, or what have you. And I find this conversation interesting in large part because this fantasy can be seen for what it is: an attempt to ground capitalism, and patriarchy too for that matter, upon a reductionist concept of biology.

Why is it fantasy to acknowledge that a real world exists? Why is it fantasy to see the interconnectedness in our behavioral patterns and the patterns of every other organism on the planet. I struggle with the same issue that you do (forgive my assumption if I am wrong). I do not want to ground capitolism in anything because I believe it is bad for humanity. Yet, capitolism is nothing but a reflection of energy flowing through natural populations. Capitolism is a model based on competition and you cannot deny the similarities. This does not mean that we cannot move on to another way of operating though... (bias - I know)

Moreover, some of the science you're citing isn't science. I mentioned the stuff on brain size, because if you go back and look, most of that, "research," was racist in the extreme...little better than phrenology.

Some, but not all. And not even substantial fraction has been used to support racist propositions. The things I have cited have not included race. They have included species - not race. Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalus, ect, all have increasing brain size which is used as a yard stick to measure their relation to Homo Sapian.

Yes, I've read some arguments about sheer size o'brain, and brain-to-body-weight ratios. And what I read all says, oops, too simplistic. Among other things, there's the fact that good old Albert Einstein had an average-sized brain. So, unlike other areas of speculation, in this area size ain't all that big a deal.

That is true. Yet, you are failing to take into account the interconnectedness of the synapses in the gray matter. Albert Einstein had some of the most densely connected gray matter in existence. In essense, it allowed him to use his brain more efficiantly then one that had less connections. A current evolutionary postulation states that there is a certain connection density that the gray matter cannot over come. When the connection density reaches this point, the brain MUST expand in volume.

Again (and with specific apologies to Rich for my over-reading), there's nothing supernatural about it. And, I'm at a loss to see how you get a claim that human beings are unique in all the universe out of what I wrote.

If the last sentance was addressed to me, then I am sorry, but I did not construe my response to be taken as such. I brought up other intelligent life for the sake of showing coevolution. (which is a moot point I realize, since we have no credible sources of ET life as of yet - discounting conspiracy theories of course )

Let me be explicit. HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS UNMEDIATED BY LANGUAGE, CULTURE, AND HISTORY. We are, "always already," encoded in such terms.

And I must ask you this question again, how are Language, Culture, and History separate from our Biology? My view is that there is no separation. So I would change that statement to, "HUMAN BEINGS DO NOTHING UNMEDIATED BY THEIR BIOLOGY"

The biologistic arguments have, as you probably already know, a long and somewhat ugly history: look up the book, "Bone Wars," check out Galton's weird, "g," factor, look at Cyril Burt's "work," on the heritability of intelligence.

There are a lot of misunderstandings and a lot of prejudice and bias to wade through in science. This is no different then any other field. Yet, I believe that we poke our heads through those viels eventually and we are able to see what is on the other side. In the end, there are no other viable alternatives. What other then our biology explains who we are?

And, you might want to consider the consequences of accepting the "pure biology," theory.

Please elaborate. I am curious to see what you consider to be the consequences... :asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[Cthulhu]

The human being is an animal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Though most animals wouldn't take that as much of a compliment.

Cthulhu

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Man is the only animal who blushes--or needs to." ---Mark Twain


Of course we're part of Nature, whatever the hell that means. And of course, we're not.

What I continue to find much more interesting is WHY folks need to believe in such reductionistic ideas--and it's a real question, not just a case of calling someone else an idiot by another name.

Me, I think it's a reflection of what I'd call capitalist ideology: the system needs to reproduce itself, so the system needs to seem necessary and natural to its human subjects (that's us), so the system aids and abets all sorts of "scientific," notions about why the system exists.

Two good examples: devout, conservative Christians who believe (like Pat Robertson) in the biologically-grounded morality of the "free market," and, "money," and, "consumption," and, "social classes," and, "competition," however much these ideas run directly and absolutely counter to every single precept laid out in the Gospels. And, "liberal," "freethinking," folks who believe in the biologically-grounded morality of the "free market," and, "money," and, "consumption," and, "social classes," and, "competition," however much these ideas run directly and absolutely counter to every single precept they espouse.

Or if you'd like another creepy example, the odd thing is that Louis Farakhan and both George Bushes agree completely about economic self-determination.

And they ALL buy old-fashioned Darwinism--only not as biology, but as sociology; not as a theory of how we got here, but as the one true explanation of why our society has just got to be this way.

Weird.

But, perfectly explicable.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmmm.... I'm inclined to agree with Robert again. Although, admittedly, I'm about as far away from "materialism" (depending on how you define it) as you can get.

The simple fact is I despise reductionism of any sort. Its rather disgusting in my eyes, and evinces some trends in academia that we would be better off avoiding.

Basically, all reductionism is is an attempt to reduce the values, truths, and endeavors of certain fields as nothing but delusions and failures falling short of the One Big Truth or Theory of Everything that whatever field the theorist happens to be a part of.

You know, we've see it all before --- the truths and endeavors in art, religion, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and so on aren't really valid themselves, but are just silly bio-chemicals shooting off in your brain. In other words, all truths in all other fields fall short of the truths in the biological ones.

Or, as the Marxists like to say, "all philosophies are just opiates of the masses". Or, as the Foucaldians like to say, "all value systems are just forms of opression created by cultural paradigms". Or, as Freudians like to say about meditative states, "its just infantile regression".

Its just academic arrogance. Its an attempt to say "my field is more important than yours" --- the kind of elitist horsecrap many "hard scientists" often say to psychologists and anthropologists. You'll notice, however, that these positions don't actually have any evidence or proof to support their rather grandiose claims --- as it is actually making claims for a negative (i.e., there is no God, humans are just biomechanical thingies, etc.) --- and is as far away from a "scientific" position as you can get. Its really just another religion-in-disguise, blind faith and all.

This is what happens when you fail to differentiate the scientific process from scientism.

I don't care what kind of reductionism it is --- whether its a Marxist trying to reduce all philosophical and religious endeavors to "ideological forms of opression" in favor of socioeconomic explanations, or Freudians trying to make all human problems out as repressed sex-drives, or Post-structuralists trying to show every value but their own is culturally relative --- it all comes down to attempts to shoot down the truths and claims of EVERY other field of knowledge but one's own. Whether you're making a Theory of Everything in which Biology or Physics or Socioeconomics or Cultural Deconstructionism is King, its still reductionism. Its just another way of saying, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

Seriously, what's so wrong with letting art stand along on its own merits, or psychology, or philosophy, or religion?? Why the need to reduce it all to distorted failures to reach your own great One Discipline??

I can understand the various disciplines and studies are interrelated (biology and economics clearly influence the findings of art and philosophy), but to have some studies and fields ultimately reduced to others??

Its just silly. In my opinion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree, except you're still wrong about Marx, Freud and Foucault.

See E.P. Thompson and others on, "vulgar marxism." See Freud, "Furture of an Illusion," and "Civilization and Its Discontents," as well as the stuff on the nature of the dream work and screen-memory back in, "Interpretation of Dreams," (some of Neil Hertz's stuff is also instructive here.) And as for Foucault, you need to take a gander at the famous page in "Discipline and Punish," (it's somewhere around page 189, offhand), which argues that we must once and for all get over the notion of power as merely repressive; "it produces," he says, "orders of knowledge and domains of truth." It is a little like Marcuse's repressive desublimation...

But basically, i agree.

Oh, and GOOD post-modernist/deconstructive theory certainly does NOT argue that it's all just culturally relative. Not even in Richard Rorty's version, I suspect. Again, see Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences."

 

[RandomPhantom700]

To heretic and robertson:

You know, I'm almost half-tempted to look through this entire thread and find out how the hell you guys got from the topic of whether man is a part of nature to a discussion of post-modernism, reduction, and (big question mark here) capitalism.

But like I said, only half-tempted. Later.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, yeah, two whole pages. I see your point.

 

[Makalakumu]

A real world exists beyond our perceptions. Laws exist that dictate the structure and function of everything in the universe. This is a fundamental rule of science. The discovery and analysis of these laws is the purpose of science. In particle physics, one finds new laws that are ever more fundamental when one breaks down a phenomenon into its constituent peices. Reductionism is how the universe is constructed. Patterns repeat themselves in nature on very large scales down to very small. For an interesting treatise on this subject read "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio.

Why is anything a human creates so different? How can anything we create be separate from our biology? No body has been able to answer this question. In fact all people have offered so far is a twisting out of philosophy that basically amounts to a rejection of humanity as a part of nature.

So I will ask this questions again and again until someone answers it. How are we different? How are we separate? How is anything a human creates more then the biology that created it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Didn't twist nothing, didn't separate human beings from nature.

Also left poor old particle physics, quantum mechanics, spooky action at a distance, the Tunguska strike, and the dancing Wu Li masters out of it.

For the fourth time, here's your answer: we are different because we have subjectivity, language, culture, history, art, and all the rest of it. None of these are purely biological. I have no idea how the hell all this stuff finally works, and neither do you.

If you prefer to believe that it's all just biology, your privilege and right. It seems to me, however, that you are reasoning entirely by analogy.

If you're wondering about how I'd argue ecological issues, it's pretty straightforward: a) the way we're acting in regard to the planet is pretty stupid and lazy, practically speaking; b) it promotes greedy and arrogant thinking; c) it promotes disdain for other human beings; d) it is bound to cause enormous social unrest and even wars; e) I despise the whole aesthetic of the shopping mall, and the World of Endless Work on which that aesthetic is based.

See? Probably no disagreement there. Didn't need to drag no Gaia into it, neither.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert

I was referring to the discussion of reductionism and post-modernism. My intent was to reduce this discussion to observation. Philosophy is a great subject because it talks about how we percieve the world around us. Yet, a real world exists and I would like to talk about what is IN that world.

I would not say my reasoning is entirely analogy. There is quite a bit of assumption, but that is due to the fact that I certainly do not know everything. I must counter your claim that subjectivity, language, culture, art, and history stand apart of biology though...

Subjectivity is the action of our perceptions. Our senses are only so accute. Therefore our descriptions of our observations will only be as accurate as the instruments we use. Subjectivity is a reflection of our biologic limits. And since they are different for every person, we can expect our points of view to differ at the largest extent by the amount individual homo sapians living on the planet.

Language is shaped by our biology. Our pallet can form certain sounds within the range of frequencies that we can hear. As time progressed, these sounds became more complex, reflecting a need to express more and more complex ideas.

Culture is shaped by the environment. Cultural roots are adaptations that allow that group to live in certain environments. Complexities develop from these, yet there is always the shadow of nature in every ritual.

Art is a form of expression of ideas. Art can be pleasing or it can be disturbing. Many of the things that please us and disturb us are determined by our biology and many of them are determined by culture - which comes from nature. Biologically speaking, art uses our senses to express itself. Our eyes, for instance see various combinations of colors and do not see combinations of other colors. What would you think of a peice of art that used combinations of color that your eyes cannot perceive correctly?

History is a record of our actions through the past. I can study an ant colony and form a similar record of their actions through the past. If I compare aspects of their behavior and how their populations interact, I will find that many of my observations are analogous.

Perhaps there is something metaphysical in the above that I am missing? If so, what?

Some of the consequences you proposed are valid repercussions of a purely biologic view of our origins. I would like you to consider this...some actions that we take are adaptive, meaning the help us live in the environment around us, and others are maladaptive, meaning that they hinder our life in the environment around us. Maladaptive behaviors usually occur when the environment changes but they can spring from mutations (both genetic and behavioral). I would classify the things that you brought up as maladaptive to life on the planet with each other. So there is no disagreement, you are correct, and the biologic explanation of our origins remains intact.

upnorthkyosa

 

[heretic888]

In regards to Robert:

I agree, except you're still wrong about Marx, Freud and Foucault.

Ah, phooey.

To tell you the truth, though, what I wrote I meant more in the direction of what the "followers" of Marx, Freud, and Foucalt have done with their ideas moreso than Marx, Freud, and Foucalt themselves (i.e., trends rather than specific individuals). Kinda like what some people have done with Thomas Kuhn's "paragidm" idea.

Still, I think that in some areas, Marx and Freud (but maybe not Foucalt) still go a bit too far in their assertions. I agree with their basic truths as far as they go, but feel they mistake their tree for the forest (if you will).

Then again, I'm not a materialist (which I would also maintain is a form of reductionism). So maybe my position is a bit biased.

Then again, most of the "materialists" I know don't advocate meditation or reading D.T. Suzuki.

But basically, i agree.

Well, yippy-ki-yay for me.

Oh, and GOOD post-modernist/deconstructive theory certainly does NOT argue that it's all just culturally relative.

I agree completely. The point I was trying to make, however, was certain trends that have been popping up in academia in recent decades (centuries, even). And "bad" postmodernism just happens to be one of those trends.

As a side note, I personally support theories like contextualism, pluralism (of its various stripes), and structuralism --- I just feel the more extremist and relativistic currents go to far.

we are different because we have subjectivity, language, culture, history, art, and all the rest of it.

Hrmmmm..... I partially agree.

In regards to subjectivity, I would say that all objects (even really basic stuff like quarks) have some degree of subjectivity --- but that the complexity and depth of the subjectivity is directly correlative (but not reducible to) the complexity and depth of the objectivity. We humans happen to have incredibly complex and intricate subjectivity because of a correlative evolution (i.e., co-development) of our material brains --- having more neuronal connections than there are stars in the galaxy certainly helps. Likewise, the objective complexity of, say, a prokayrote isn't all that well-developed --- and their correlative subjectivity is likewise.

Now, again, I'm not trying to reduce these subjective domains as being merely the cause or production of the objective domains --- it is simply my position that objectivity and subjectivity have co-evolved since the Big Bang, increasing in complexity and organization. If the object isn't that complex, then the subject isn't that complex --- and vice-versa. They co-evolve, in my opinion.

It really does pose problems for positions like upnorthkyosa's, however, as if you are going to reduce all subjective phenomena as being the result or side-effect of objective phenomena, you have to explain exactly when in the history of the cosmos that subjectivity first "popped" out of objects. You also have to further explain how exactly objects can exist without subjects --- that's like claiming, for the first 5 billion years, the universe just consisted of all ups and no downs, or all hots and no colds.

I personally find the co-evolution of subjects/objects to be a much more cogent explanation.

None of these are purely biological.

This I would also agree with.

The key issue, in my mind, is that --- contrary to Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria position --- these phenomena are basically inseparable. For example, for every subjective experience we have there is an objective brain state or whatnot that we can record externally.

However, inseparability is not indistinguishability (I apologize if that isn't a real word). I feel our "biology" has a very big influence on our subjective states and accomplishments (and vice-versa), but that they are basically distinct entities.

Let's try and find a balance between inseparability and reductionism, neh? :asian:

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

You're simply imposing a reductive biology to argue for a "more-ecological," society.

There are consequences. If it's all just biology, women need to get their biscuits in the over and their buns in the bed, to quote Kinky Friedman. If it's all just biology, black kids need to quit dreaming of swimming for their country in the Olympics. If it's all just biology...well, you get my point.

Moreover, such arguments have an extremely ugly history.

Sorry, but among other errors, subjectivity is not the action of our perceptions. It's more like our reflection upon the actions of our perceptions.

Yes (again) biology is vital. So's understanding Nature. But human beings haven't lived in a pure state of nature since the Aboriginal population changed the Australian ecosystem by burning everything off some 40, 000 years ago...and longer than that, actually.

If we'd stayed wholly natural, we'd be extinct.

And I still don't understand your investment in biology uber alles.

 

[heretic888]

In regards to RandomPhantom:

You know, I'm almost half-tempted to look through this entire thread and find out how the hell you guys got from the topic of whether man is a part of nature to a discussion of post-modernism, reduction, and (big question mark here) capitalism.

Very simply, because I was commenting on reductionistic trends in academia --- some of which are among postmodern theorists. I don't recall anything about capitalism, I think you have this confused with another thread.

This thread really isn't about "Nature" either, unless your definition of that concept is limited solely to biological phenomena (in which case, "Nature" didn't exist for the first few billion years of the universe).

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In regards to upnorthkyosa:

A real world exists beyond our perceptions.

Common experience dictates this is so, but the simple truth remains that, although a "real world" (I chuckle at this terminology) may (and probably does) exist independent of our observations and perceptions, we sure as hell can't observe or perceive it. Kind of a universal paradox, I suppose --- objectivity and subjectivity co-exist and co-create.

Laws exist that dictate the structure and function of everything in the universe.

Poppycock.

Your "biological laws" have little, if anything, to do with socioeconomic modes of production, the creation of art, or explaining how exactly we develop new thoughts and ideas. I'm sure these laws apply to the structure and function of everything biological in the universe --- but when I created the thought just a few moments ago, it had nothing to do with biology.

Reductionism is how the universe is constructed.

Balderdash.

Your reductionism can't explain how ANY phenomena is actually created --- despite the bluff of Western biologists, we don't actually know how new adaptations evolve in life. Sure, we can maybe pin down various selection processes as to why certain adaptations outlast others --- but that tells us nothing about how those adaptations arose in the first place.

Just ask any scientist to really create something new, something novel, out of something else in a laboratory setting --- he can't do it. Sure, we can make enzymes out of OTHER enzymes, we can make molecules out of OTHER molecules, and so forth --- but I can't artificially create sentience out of non-sentience, or life out of non-life, and so forth.

Why?? Because, for whatever reasons, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- and that's the ticker that reductionists have trouble grasping.

Why is anything a human creates so different? How can anything we create be separate from our biology? No body has been able to answer this question.

I don't recall anybody claiming anything about humanity actually being separate from out biology, as opposed to not being reduced to biology. They are inseparable, yet distinct.

In fact all people have offered so far is a twisting out of philosophy that basically amounts to a rejection of humanity as a part of nature.

Again, with your "nature" rhetoric --- since when were "nature" and "biology" synonyms??

I was referring to the discussion of reductionism and post-modernism. My intent was to reduce this discussion to observation.

None of your philosophical claims have actually been observed in the world, upnorthkyosa. Namely, because the basis of your entire conceptual framework is on the proposition of negatives --- and negatives cannot be observed or proven.

The entire basis for your scientism here is that nothing non-material exists because you believe it doesn't. Its really just blind faith, as a claim like that can never be proven.

Philosophy is a great subject because it talks about how we percieve the world around us. Yet, a real world exists and I would like to talk about what is IN that world.

I love the hypocrisy of this statement.

Here you were going on about how everything human is ultimately reduced to biology and objective phenomena, but now you admit philosophical pursuits as somehow being "other than" your "real world". Joyous.

You are also making the same gross assumption that we know ANYTHING about the objective world independent of our subjective filters and perceptions. Once you've tackled this perceiving without perceiving issue, be sure and explain it to the rest of us --- the postmodernists will be especially attentive, I'm sure.

Subjectivity is the action of our perceptions. Our senses are only so accute. Therefore our descriptions of our observations will only be as accurate as the instruments we use. Subjectivity is a reflection of our biologic limits.

Perhaps, but some subjective phenomena operate independently of the observations of our biological five senses --- some forms of mathematics and Aristotlean logic, for example.

Language is shaped by our biology. Our pallet can form certain sounds within the range of frequencies that we can hear. As time progressed, these sounds became more complex, reflecting a need to express more and more complex ideas.

There's a difference between something being shaped or influenced by something else, and it being reduced to it.

Culture is shaped by the environment. Cultural roots are adaptations that allow that group to live in certain environments. Complexities develop from these, yet there is always the shadow of nature in every ritual.

Once again, there's a difference between something being shaped or influenced by something else, and it being reduced to it.

Art is a form of expression of ideas. Art can be pleasing or it can be disturbing. Many of the things that please us and disturb us are determined by our biology and many of them are determined by culture - which comes from nature.

Art as nothing but hedonism on a canvas?? Delightful, an art scholar would eat your alive. :uhyeah:

Perhaps there is something metaphysical in the above that I am missing? If so, what?

Not our problem. You're the one making the absolutistic claims, thus the burden of proof is on you. Its not the critic's duty to provide counterproof for something that doesn't have any proof to begin with.

Once again, all your philosophical (not scientific) claims all basically come down to blind faith.

Maladaptive behaviors usually occur when the environment changes but they can spring from mutations (both genetic and behavioral). I would classify the things that you brought up as maladaptive to life on the planet with each other. So there is no disagreement, you are correct, and the biologic explanation of our origins remains intact.

Such explanations, of course, are wholly lacking.

Ask any biologist, and he'll tell you the most well-adapated organism on the planet are prokaryotic bacterium. These also happen to be the FIRST organisms on the planet --- thus all other subsequent organisms and species have been maladaptive evolutions. Kinda throws Neo-Darwinism for a loop, neh??

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

It really does pose problems for positions like upnorthkyosa's, however, as if you are going to reduce all subjective phenomena as being the result or side-effect of objective phenomena, you have to explain exactly when in the history of the cosmos that subjectivity first "popped" out of objects. You also have to further explain how exactly objects can exist without subjects --- that's like claiming, for the first 5 billion years, the universe just consisted of all ups and no downs, or all hots and no colds.

I am curious as to how you define objectivity and subjectivity.

Objectivity, as I have learned it, is the real world. It is what actually exists when no observer is present. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is what the observer percieves. The moment we study the objective it becomes subjective. So, in essence, the moment the universe changed from objective to subjective was the moment we observed it. This does not mean that an object loses its objectivity though. It still exists even as we observe it. All objects are both objective and subjective.

Also, objects exist without subjects because an object remains an object when when no one is there to observe it. We find particles from the early universe that were clearly around when there was no one to observe them. That is unless said observer was able to withstand the extreme conditions directly following the Big Bang, which is possible, yet unlikely given our current set of observations.