Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. You are saying it as though it is an invalid conclusion. They identified the gene variation: AVPR1A RS3 327 bp allele. Everything in science is validated experimentally. Not sure what your objection is, or is there? They identify it empirically, not structurally. Science is also axiomatic reasoning. A collection of statistics never made a science. Almost anything can be proven with empiric method and enough cherry picking.
I still stand with edelman when he says the influence of genetics on the brain is not clear, and genetics doesnt code for brain développement. So that mean selfishness is not dependant on the brain, which seem contradictory with things like mirror neurons Who seem to take part in "empathy" or certain social behavior. Really? Objectively? Are you sure you know how science works? Can you prove that Atum exists? , how this protein affect selfishness ? Correlation doesnt mean causality. Like absurd reasoning of socrates. Its like testing a program with unit test vs formal proof. The first doesnt prove a lot. Already with epi genetic its not always meaningful to isolate a gene, because there can always be inhibitors or other genes that will affect a behavior as well. Saying that there is an isolated gene responsible for such complex behavior seems a bit bold thats all. Is it like magic thinking or something ? G-protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin_receptor_1Ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein |
|
|
|
Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. You are saying it as though it is an invalid conclusion. They identified the gene variation: AVPR1A RS3 327 bp allele. Everything in science is validated experimentally. Not sure what your objection is, or is there? They identify it empirically, not structurally. Science is also axiomatic reasoning. A collection of statistics never made a science. Almost anything can be proven with empiric method and enough cherry picking.
I still stand with edelman when he says the influence of genetics on the brain is not clear, and genetics doesnt code for brain développement. So that mean selfishness is not dependant on the brain, which seem contradictory with things like mirror neurons Who seem to take part in "empathy" or certain social behavior. Really? Objectively? Are you sure you know how science works? Can you prove that Atum exists? |
|
|
|
I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?
Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.
Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion. If that really is the case then that's good that both groups are outliers and the "normal people" outnumber them. I'm still a bit skeptical though, I think empathy/selfishness is a trait separate from intelligence. For me intelligence is the same thing as empathy/consciousness. Its the ability to be aware of your surrounding. Some says the developpment of intelligence is more related to ability to live in large groups of individual rather than understanding physics with asperger syndrome. Not necessarily. A psychopath might be intelligent enough to understand and predict people without feeling empathetic for them. I don't dispute that we became increasing intelligent to handle the complexities of larger society but it alone does not explain empathy. I would dare say empathy came first coz without it we wouldn't have formed groups in the first place. For me a psychpath is not intelligent  He only think he is, and only focus on some narrow understanding of some part of people and consequences. Psychopath can be defined as not really conscious of the consequences of his action, so no fully intelligent. They still rarely end up as happy persons. Even empathy in itself doesnt mean sympathy and ability to improve someone happiness its a passive thing, like intelligence is also a passive thing. There is this concept also of cognitive empathy, which mean more or less ability to conceptualize empathic feeling, and also give more context on how to act on it, like they explain the example with a cat, if you see it meowing you can sense a disconfort with empathy but if you dont know what he eats, how to get it etc, in itself its not very useful either. Its also why intelligence comes with more complex languages, and ability to conceptualize more "states" and more complex situations and elaborate more complex cooperative strategies. I always thought that psychopaths "were clever", but it was probably due to the media conditioning. Reports of "evil geniuses" etc. Scientific studies show that there is no correlation between intelligence and psychopathy.They can be extremely intelligent and extremely dull, just like an average person. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/unique-everybody-else/201612/are-psychopaths-really-smarter-the-rest-us |
|
|
|
Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. You are saying it as though it is an invalid conclusion. They identified the gene variation: AVPR1A RS3 327 bp allele. Everything in science is validated experimentally. Not sure what your objection is, or is there? |
|
|
|
^^^ This is where I fail at times. The only way to convert anyone to faith is to use the words of the Bible. My words are mostly not good enough paraphrasing of what the Bible says to do the job.  Using the Bible to convert someone to your faith would only work on people who never read the Bible, are gullible, don't care if it is true, want to believe in something bigger than themselves, and will only read the nice passages you tell them to read. If you want to convert Atheists, you need to use non-Biblical evidence.Most Atheists read the Bible more than once, some were preachers, and most know it better than you. You cannot convince an Atheist that the Bible is a true word of God and use the Bible to do it. LOL. It would be as if an Atheist would try to convert you to stop believing in Jesus, believe in Atum instead and use the Book of the Dead to do it. |
|
|
|
I agree that presenting this as a problem of a few bad genes is oversimplification. The problem is deeper then that. While it is certainly true that there are some genes that make the problem worse and other genes that mitigate it to a small degree the problem persists even among those with more favorable genetics. For example most people would say that their friends and neighbors are "good people". However, in your personal life how many friends and neighbors would you be willing on trust alone hold onto your savings of say $100,000 for safekeeping? The number of "good people" we find around us drops remarkable quickly when we really really require them to be good in the face of temptation. The problem goes far beyond a few bad genes that can be targeted and modified. Human nature itself is infused with tremendous evil. We are truly fallen creatures. We are wolves by nature. Some wolves are restrained by physical cages, others by fear of cages and punishment. The best of us try and to some degree succeed in putting the wolf in us to sleep and restrain ourselves allowing that which is best to emerge. In all cases, however, the wolf is never gone deep down it remains.
“Yes, but mark, what is true one day is not false another; "the carnal mind is enmity against God" at all times. The wolf may sleep, but it is a wolf still. The snake with its azure hues, may slumber amid the flowers, and the child may stroke its slimy back, but it is a serpent still; it does not change its nature, though it is dormant. The sea is the house of storms, even when it is glassy as a lake; the thunder is still the mighty rolling thunder, when it is so much aloft that we hear it not. And the heart, when we perceive not its ebullitions, when it belches not forth its lava, and sendeth not forth the hot stones of its corruption, is still the same dread volcano. At all times, at all hours, at every moment.” - REV. C. H. Spurgeon
The only real solution would require a voluntary and complete transformation of each and every human being into something that was pure. It would require a change so profound the only analogy I can think of is transformation of a bunch of individual cancer cells on a Petri dish to into a full and functional intelligent multicellular organism with each cell working for the greater good of the whole. While this task may be theoretically achievable I think it is fairly obvious that our species lacks what it takes to accomplish it on our own. I will share a couple more quotes that sprang to mind while writing this post. Romans 7:18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.
Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.John 3:3-3:6 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.I never said it is easy. Social engineering (religions and similar tools) can only do so much. Reading good books (biographies, history, psychology or sociology) might help. I think understanding human nature, understanding the harm your actions inflict on others can help you to become more empathetic to others. But in the end, if you are an asshole from the get-go, you'll probably die an asshole. No book can fix you. You'll read the Bible or the Quran and continue to be an asshole. How many priests read the Bible every day and abuse little kids right after their Bible reading? How many Muslims read the Quran and go out and kill non-Muslims? You have to believe that the 'medication' (God/salvation/magic etc.) you are taking will really help you, for the placebo effect (be a better person) to work. |
|
|
|
How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene? That is a very difficult task.
The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order. Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.
How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ? People's personal traits seem to be genetic. Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go? They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic. |
|
|
|
I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?
Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.
Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion. Disadvantages of high IQMensa Magazine June 2009 pp 34-5 http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2012/08/disadvantages-of-high-iq.html?m=1
Sidis himself demonstrated, in exaggerated form, three traits which I put forward as being aspects of high IQ which are potentially disadvantageous: socialism, atheism and low-fertility.
1. Socialism
Higher IQ is probably associated with socialism via the personality trait called Openness-to-experience, which is modestly but significantly correlated with IQ. (To be more exact, left wing political views and voting patterns are characteristic of the highest and lowest IQ groups – the elite and the underclass - and right wingers tend to be in the mid-range.)
Openness summarizes such attributes as imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity – it also (among high IQ people in Western societies) predicts left-wing political views. Sidis was an extreme socialist, who received a prison sentence for participating in a May Day parade which became a riot (in the event, he ‘served his time’ in a sanatorium).
Now, of course, not everyone would agree that socialism is wrong (indeed, Mensa members reading this are quite likely to be socialists). But if socialism is regarded as a mistaken ideology (as I personally would argue!), then it could be said that high IQ people are more likely to be politically wrong. But whether correct or wrong, the point is that high IQ people do seem to have a built-in psychological and political bias.
The article contradicts itself. On one hand, it states that high IQ individuals are more likely to be selfish and then it says that they are more left-leaning. People who support socialism (and its derivative communism) do it for two reasons: to get free stuff or are genuinely concerned about the well being of the less fortunate. I suspect that some high IQ individuals are more empathetic (because they can foresee multitudes of outcomes and identify multiple root causes of the issues) to the less fortunate, that is why they lean towards socialism. And there are some high IQ individuals who see socialism as a power grab and are vehemently against it. In either case, high IQ people generally see a couple of moves ahead of everybody else in this chess game called life. IQ is irrelevant when it comes to politics, religion or lack thereof, IMHO. You don't need to be super smart to become an atheist. You just need to be educated a little bit. Learn how to eliminate your personal bias, follow the evidence wherever it will lead you. There are extremely stupid and smart atheists, socialists, and capitalists. You can do data cherry-picking to get whatever outcome you desire. But back to your original criticism of society with only high IQ individuals, I have to agree with you, a society with only high IQ individuals would not work with our current human condition. They would just kill each other. You would end up with the same result if you had only dumb barbarians in society. Without stratification, societies become unstable. That is one aspect. The root cause of the failure is actually the selfish gene that leads us to wars despite of attempted social engineering to prevent it (religion's love you neighbor or progressive thought, love everyone, etc.) We have a selfish gene that helped us survive to this day. And we needed some sort of social engineering to control it. Religion, politics, tribalism, nationalism were tried in the past to achieve this function, with limited success. Look at our inability to act in the face of a global climate change and destruction of ecosystems. How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene? That is a very difficult task. The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order. Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us. |
|
|
|
Go to science. Put cause-and-effect, entropy, and complexity together, and try to get our universe without God. Bonus: All our machines come from machinery operations in the universe. None of the machines we make is ever made from machinery operations from outside the universe. The universe is a machine. Machines have makers. And Gods have makers who also have makers, ad infinitum. You don't. You operate by universe physics, and can't really determine what physics would be like outside of the universe. God is outside the universe as well as within it. However, when He made the universe, He was outside of it. Do you have evidence of what things outside the universe are like? Perhaps things out there have always existed... without beginning or end. I don't. I don't believe there is such a thing. If anything has a maker, the maker must have a maker as well. Just following your watchmaker argument. BTW, how do you know our universe is a machine? Show me the plans for it. |
|
|
|
Truth is not a popularity vote.
It does not matter how many people are for it or against it.
Hey we agree on something for once. I am with you on this one something is true or false moral or immoral inherently and objectivity and it really does not matter if it is a majority or a minority that is able see to understand that truth. However, I am surprised to see this line argument from you. It was not that long ago when you said this. morality is relative and is not absolute.
So are you a believer now in objective truth and objective morality? The scientific method is objective. This is the best epistemic tool we have to discover what is true and what is false. Subjective opinions of minority or majority are just that, subjective, and can be dismissed if they cannot be validated objectively. Morality is temporal and is cultural. We have plenty of evidence to support this fact. We strive to improve our morality to cause the least harm. Morality aside, I am not sure we'll ever move up on the Kardashev scale. Unless we drop the ancient myths and embrace science and technology. You are an MD and you are against stem cell research, a case in point. Imagine what all other less educated simpletons think of science. The majority of people do not even understand basic concepts (BADecker etc.). Look at the Flat Earth 'syndrome'. The Internet is a two-edge sword I guess. Another problem I see is rampant nationalism, political tribalism, and remnants of ancient myths that will slow us down in the best case, or completely wipe out human species in the worst case. The biggest issue is our exponential human population growth, but nobody wants to talk about that. We may just outbreed ourselves into another population bottleneck. |
|
|
|
The fertilized, living egg IS a human being. That's the point. You are a moron. No amount of evidence will change your mind. Well, you're mor-off than mor-on. However, to quote another post in this thread, "No amount of evidence will change your mind." Af_newbie you do realize that 50% of the US population is prolife don’t you? United States anti-abortion movementhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_anti-abortion_movementThe United States anti-abortion movement (or the pro-life movement or right-to-life movement) contains elements opposing induced abortion on both moral and sectarian grounds and supports its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human zygote (or embryo or fetus) is a person and therefore has a right to life.
Public opinion is slowly shifting on this topic and we are waking up from our stupor of institutionalized violence against the unborn.  I suspect current trends will continue and society will one day look back on our murderous crimes against the unborn with the same horror we now reserve for other great crimes against humanity. Truth is not a popularity vote. It does not matter how many people are for it or against it. Not long ago 99% of people believed that Earth is flat and is in the center of the universe and all the stars revolved around it. It is what it is. Anyone who is sane should be for the preservation of life. The question is where you draw the line. Nature is teeming with life. We grow life in factories just to kill it at a tender age. We grow life only to cut it just when the seeds mature. We spray chemicals with no end to kill animals and ourselves. The truth of the matter is that a fertilized egg is not a sentient being, never mind a human being, that develops much later.This "pro-life" stance is purely dogmatic or I should say political. People who scream they are "pro-life" have no problem ordering a steak or veal, eat eggs and whole animals or use services of the in-vitro clinic. It is really comical. Basically, the majority of the pro-life folks say: "We are pro-life, no matter what!" and omit to add "as long as it could be a human life". And the same parrots have no problem going to war and kill children, as long as they are not from their tribe. If you can show me that a fertilized egg on a petri dish has some brain activity, I am willing to change my mind. Until then, it is just a bunch of cells. People who are against stem cell research are uneducated, dogmatic morons, IMHO. PS. Pull up statistics on evolution, age of the Earth, God creation myth. Does that make any of them true or false? The numbers mean diddly-squat whether the proposition is true or false. Follow the evidence not what people believe at one point in time. 100 years ago women did not have a personhood status. Alan Turing killed himself because he was homosexual and was ordered by the court to either undergo chemical castration or go to prison. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK at the time. The majority of people believed that homosexuals should be castrated, I bet you this was after centuries of reformation, a few hundred years ago homosexuals were just killed, as per the Bible recommendation. Atheists face a death penalty in Saudi Arabia. The majority of people in that country are in favor of this penalty. PPS. Crimes against humanity? LOL. What about human crimes against nature? They are not important in your book, I guess. Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague. |
|
|
|
When a 40-year-old man is killed, nobody in their right mind would say that an alive fertilized egg has been killed.
We would say a human being has been killed.
Why? Because a fertilized egg is not a human being, dead or alive.
That is why it is nonsensical to say that a human being has been killed when an alive fertilized egg has been destroyed.
All you can say, alive fertilized eggs have been destroyed.
Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.
When a 40-y-o dies, we say a person dies. When a fertilized egg dies, we say a fertilized egg dies. The reason we don't say person with the egg is that the egg is a human in progress. But really, so is the 40-y-o. Just because we say something one way or another, doesn't mean that we are denying that a fertilized egg is a human being. The denial that a fertilized egg is a human being is a denial. The acceptance of a fertilized egg being a human being is the acceptance of such. None of it depends on what we say. In other words, if a fertilized egg dies, someone might say, "A human being just died." Another person might say, "We don't usually say it this way, but you are right." EDIT: When you are asleep, you are not conscious. Does this mean that you are not a human being when you are asleep? What about in a coma? Does someone stop being human just because he is in a coma? Just because something "could become" does not mean it "is". Deal with reality, not what you want it to be. The fertilized, living egg IS a human being. That's the point. You are a moron. No amount of evidence will change your mind. |
|
|
|
When a 40-year-old man is killed, nobody in their right mind would say that an alive fertilized egg has been killed.
We would say a human being has been killed.
Why? Because a fertilized egg is not a human being, dead or alive.
That is why it is nonsensical to say that a human being has been killed when an alive fertilized egg has been destroyed.
All you can say, alive fertilized eggs have been destroyed.
Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.
When a 40-y-o dies, we say a person dies. When a fertilized egg dies, we say a fertilized egg dies. The reason we don't say person with the egg is that the egg is a human in progress. But really, so is the 40-y-o. Just because we say something one way or another, doesn't mean that we are denying that a fertilized egg is a human being. The denial that a fertilized egg is a human being is a denial. The acceptance of a fertilized egg being a human being is the acceptance of such. None of it depends on what we say. In other words, if a fertilized egg dies, someone might say, "A human being just died." Another person might say, "We don't usually say it this way, but you are right." EDIT: When you are asleep, you are not conscious. Does this mean that you are not a human being when you are asleep? What about in a coma? Does someone stop being human just because he is in a coma? Just because something "could become" does not mean it "is". Deal with reality, not what you want it to be. |
|
|
|
Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.
Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being  So now we play with words. You know what I meant, a sentient being, not that it merely exists. Words are important Edelman and the likes show that its not that easy to know where sentience and consciousness really starts or ends. At which point you consider a cell or a group of cell is sentient or not ? It is hard to determine exactly when this happens as it is a cumulative process, and it is dependent on the environment and genetics. It is also species-dependent. To be aware of your environment you need some sort of complex brain. In the case of a human pregnancy, I am sure that in most cases, a viable fetus is a sentient being. Consciousness is a result of your brain processing all the inputs, current and past. When you deprive your brain of oxygen, it slowly dies, when all cells die and the RNA/DNA in your brain cells fragments, there is no going back, your brain is dead forever, and your consciousness ends forever. The claim made earlier in this thread that a fertilized egg is a human being is so ridiculous that it blows my mind how people can be so dogmatic. I only entertained it to lead them out of their logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.
Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being So now we play with words. You know what I meant, a sentient being, not that it merely exists. |
|
|
|
Two people are human beings. Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.
A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?
Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?
You are getting sooo good. A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road. A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper. 90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from. So don't tell me that I am killing babies when I destroy fertilized eggs. Case closed. Destroying dead fertilized eggs isn't killing babies. Destroying live, fertilized, human eggs is killing human beings - people. I thought you agreed that LIVE fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as LIVE human babies? Anyway, it was fun talking to both of you. Looks like you have some mental issues going on so I won't bother you. Take care. ... When a 40-year-old man is killed, nobody in their right mind would say that an alive fertilized egg has been killed. We would say a human being has been killed. Why? Because a fertilized egg is not a human being, dead or alive. That is why it is nonsensical to say that a human being has been killed when an alive fertilized egg has been destroyed. All you can say, alive fertilized eggs have been destroyed. Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings. |
|
|
|
Two people are human beings. Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.
A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?
Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?
You are getting sooo good. A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road. A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper. 90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from. So don't tell me that I am killing babies when I destroy fertilized eggs. Case closed. Destroying dead fertilized eggs isn't killing babies. Destroying live, fertilized, human eggs is killing human beings - people. I thought you agreed that LIVE fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as LIVE human babies? Anyway, it was fun talking to both of you. Looks like you have some mental issues going on so I won't bother you. Take care. |
|
|
|
Two people are human beings. Two fertilized human eggs are two fertilized human eggs.
A fertilized human egg is not THE SAME as a human being (a newborn child), right?
Fertilized human eggs are not the SAME as human newborn babies from which they have developed, right?
You are getting sooo good. A coffin is often the result of a human fertilized egg... hopefully 90 or a hundred years down the road. A baby before it poops its diaper is not the same as it is after it poops its diaper. 90-y-o people are not the same as the 20-y-o people they have developed from. So don't tell me that I am killing babies when I destroy fertilized eggs. Case closed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
