Men and their.. insatiable lust

Gordon

Ehh, sorry to keep dragging this off topic but I don't understand Vangelis' viewpoint here, it would make it much clearer to me if he could explain if he believes in God or not:

Vangelis wrote:

I'm not actually suggesting that there is a Creator and that His Spirit was given to us, I know that this is so.

Sometimes I even doubt God.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Ahh you see, but there is the rub, that is your view of its meaning. Many many many, devout holy men before you have taken it to mean exactly that the Sun does do a "circuit" of the earth (if you want to reference the orginal translation - circuit infers a revolution, much like "circuit training").

So what makes your take on its meaning more valid than the previous popes and bishops and holy men that took another meaning?

I believe it was easy for earlier popes and bishops to understand it that way. Wasn't there a (mistaken) scientific theory in the middle-ages that the Earth was flat? From what I can remember from my history lessons, this was used to argue for the Church's views. However, if this Ptolemaic theory came before the bishops and popes started interpreting that Psalm that way, I do not know. But I'd really like to know.

The person who wrote this Psalm wrote what he saw. He was on the ground, not able to see the round form of the Planet or if the Sun actually circulated around the Earth. It is a very metaphoric almost poemlike psalm where the Sun symbolises the power emanating from God that covers all the Earth.

Why not take the literal meaning of the day, in which case the actual meaning is that the sun travels around the earth.

Yes, why not? But today we know that the Earth is round. The early popes and bishops 'misused' this psalm to support their view that the Earth is round, while there are many ways to read this Psalm. I suggest the bishops and popes just chose to look at it in one way.

There is no explanation for how the Sun, if you take it's literal meaning not the symbolic, can travel beyond the other end and back to its starting point.
It is my humble opinion that that proves that the psalm cannot be interpreted as a scientific explanation of the course of the Sun or the shape of the Earth.

Well monogamy, as has been explained to you countless times is biologically regulated. Instinct is also a biologically regulated oh and we've discussed many scientific facts on various threads. Your misunderstanding of Darwin, genetics and evolutionary genetics and how you applied it is one case in point.

Give me some good links about genetics and evolution then.

Its not a crime, but like I said in the other thread. You base your arguments on one side ofthe coin, without any knowledge of the other. Thus your argument is inherently biased - in fairness to you, you do seem willing and happy to take on new facts - but only, it seems if they do not cause you insecurity in your own beliefs.

All I can say is that my faith is more important to me than science.
I will not deny my God if some wise guy shows up saying something that contradicts my faith. Evolution does not, and I can accept that. Instincts I can accept too.

Vangelis

Gordon wrote:

Ehh, sorry to keep dragging this off topic but I don't understand Vangelis' viewpoint here, it would make it much clearer to me if he could explain if he believes in God or not:

All I am saying is that I am not perfect.
My faith needs nurturing. Sometimes I fail.
Sometimes I ask God, why did you do this? Why does this happen?
But I always find my peace back and continue believing.

PS: And I am a WOMAN.

Gordon

Whoops, sorry, Vangelis is a very manly name here in Greece.

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

"Guilt" is a very real biological process, that serves a very important evolutionary purpose.

Can you explain that one please. If you have ever known, or indeed had any form of therapy, you would be aware that therapy is designed to stop people feeling guilt and fear in order to regain control of their lives.

Awaiting explanation.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Can you explain that one please. If you have ever known, or indeed had any form of therapy, you would be aware that therapy is designed to stop people feeling guilt and fear in order to regain control of their lives.

Awaiting explanation.

K-

There is a difference between the reasons people feel guilt and the fact that that people feel the emotion guilt.

It was suggested (by LazyDaisy i think) that the emotion itself was some how invented by western culture. I was explaining that the emotion, like all emotions, is biological, while the reasons people can feel the emotion can be culturally defined.

Guilt can be quite over powering, effecting everything from mood to the ability to eat or sleep. This would be strong evidence that there is a biological reaction taking place inside the human body when someone feels guilty, just like when someone feels fear. Therapy attempt to help people get over that feeling by tackling the reasons the person is feeling guilty, not by eliminating the emotion itself (which would be nearly impossible without strong drugs or a frontal labotamy.

Vangelis

Kell wrote:

Can you explain that one please. If you have ever known, or indeed had any form of therapy, you would be aware that therapy is designed to stop people feeling guilt and fear in order to regain control of their lives.

When one needs therapy for guilt-feeling, isn't that because the feeling of guilt is excessive/compulsive/detrimental?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I believe it was easy for earlier popes and bishops to understand it that way. Wasn't there a (mistaken) scientific theory in the middle-ages that the Earth was flat?
<snip>It is my humble opinion that that proves that the psalm cannot be interpreted as a scientific explanation of the course of the Sun or the shape of the Earth.

But wait, you are arguing that the Bible is the word of god.

Science is merely the word of man, based on observation. Obviously as we've been able to see farther we've been able to map out more (thats a metaphor meaning as we've advanced so has our understanding).

But you've argued that the bible is gods word. So god got it wrong. If god got it wrong, then what else might he have gotten wrong.

If its not god, or merely the hierarchys take on the word of god, what might they have gotten wrong.

Give me some good links about genetics and evolution then.

I already have given you plenty of links and reading suggestions in various threads.

All I can say is that my faith is more important to me than science.
I will not deny my God if some wise guy shows up saying something that contradicts my faith. Evolution does not, and I can accept that. Instincts I can accept too.

Again I say thats fair enough. Your belief is fine but I ask, if you will not open yourself to other ideas or beliefs or are selective about what you will be open to, then why do you come to a debate except to preach to others?

kell wrote:

Can you explain that one please. If you have ever known, or indeed had any form of therapy, you would be aware that therapy is designed to stop people feeling guilt and fear in order to regain control of their lives.

I'm not too up on this one, but guilt is one of the symptoms associated with depression and bipolar disorder. It can be countered by pharmacological means.

That is, there is a chemical pathway in the brain that may be blocked/activated which stops the feeling of guilt. Ergo, the pathway for guilt is a chemical one.

Vangelis

You haven't given me any links. I do not find any.
If you want to continue this discussion, it had better move to a different forum. I want to get back on topic.

psi wrote:

I'm not too up on this one, but guilt is one of the symptoms associated with depression and bipolar disorder. It can be countered by pharmacological means.

Is guilt a disease? The only person who does not feel guilt for anything is a psychopath.

That is, there is a chemical pathway in the brain that may be blocked/activated which stops the feeling of guilt. Ergo, the pathway for guilt is a chemical one.

I thought medicines for depression was about regulating serotonin.
Obviously, I didn't know that if I felt guilty for not having called my mom(she might be worried, she cares for me) in a week when away, I would be fine by taking a pill.

Gordon

Are there pills for everything these days? Get rid of guilt with a pill, hunger relief with a pill, lust with a pill, excessive crying with a pill? With all these wee chemical pathways being blocked we would end up a big blob of cabbageness right?

Maybe there exists a pill to quosh male libido and/or to heighten the female libido? Would you give one of these to your partner Vangelis - or would you take one yourself?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

You haven't given me any links. I do not find any.
If you want to continue this discussion, it had better move to a different forum. I want to get back on topic.

you haven't looked very hard. I gave the name of a book and an author of a very good, east to understand book on genetics.

The internet is wonderful, but reading internet sights does not equate to an education or solid foundation on a subject matter. The internet has no editors and no review system. I would not do you the disservice of suggesting a site.

Is guilt a disease? The only person who does not feel guilt for anything is a psychopath.

Did I suggest anywhere in my posts that guilt was a disease?

I thought medicines for depression was about regulating serotonin.

You thought wrong.

Obviously, I didn't know that if I felt guilty for not having called my mom(she might be worried, she cares for me) in a week when away, I would be fine by taking a pill.

I don't believe I said or implied that anywhere.

I do wonder, reading your posts whether you are purposefully obtuse or whether you just don't read what people have written.

I pointed out that several drugs that work by supression or induction of chemical signalling pathways work to counter conditions that are associated with excess guilt.

This is a fact. We know it happens because we can see it in action.

Ergo, we have a strong indication that the feeling of guilt is chemically generated.

This should be no surprise as we have mapped most emotions to chemical signalling.

lazydaisy

Sorry for taking so long to get back. PSI, I have been taking on board your complaints about my posts and I will try to take a different approach. I did post some links early on but people complained that the research was outdated, even though some of them were from channel 4 and seemed pretty contemporary.

I have been trying to find some links from places I think posters here might recognise.

PSI- many links come from places that have editors and fact checkers. You are mistaken there.

It would be nice if you did the same.

Can someone please distinguish the difference between guilt, remorse and social pressure?

Also I think people should cut Vangelis some slack as English is her second language and there are some translation leaps.

I also think that we have to move away from the idea that chemical brain structures imply universality as those too can be culturally relative. For example the high rate of alcoholism in some cultures, we wont mention which ones [cough], and the higher rates of schizophrenia and manic depression in some cultures which we also wont mention. And you also have to consider that environmental factors influence biology and adaptation.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3219879

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,6000,493358,00.html

The Guardian article refers to an evolutionary psychologist who has a number of hits if you Google him.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Sorry for taking so long to get back. PSI, I have been taking on board your complaints about my posts and I will try to take a different approach. I did post some links early on but people complained that the research was outdated, even though some of them were from channel 4 and seemed pretty contemporary.

I think your initial problem is aiming for the popular media. Some (not all - I strongly emphasise this) media outlest simplify concepts down to the point wher ethey actually getthe point wrong altogether.

The problem is then recognising which is which.

PSI- many links come from places that have editors and fact checkers. You are mistaken there.

There is a differentce between journalistic editing and peer reviewing. Mainly that the former concerns itself with readability and that nothing printed can be classed as purposefully misleading - they latter actually reviews the theory, sees how sound it is and how it holds up to the other evidence in the area of research. Hence a newspaper article or a wiki article do not constitute sources for scientific information. At least not to anyone in the business of science.

It would be nice if you did the same.

So far I've given books and references. By respected scientists in top journals. So don't know where you're going with that.

Can someone please distinguish the difference between guilt, remorse and social pressure?

Respectively an attempt at ametaphor would be pain from a cut, swelling from the cut and the fall that caused both.

Pain is biological. It can occur for different reasons triggered by many different things. The same with swelling, its a very complex biological event that can occur for many reasons in many places - including with a cut.

Both of these can occur if the right type of fall happens. If the fall applies pressure to an area of the body in a certain way. They don't *HAVE* to happen with a fall, but they'll be alot more common and expected if you fall alot. If you are in an environment where the environment makes it more likely you'll get fall(say you live on the side of a rocky mountain) you'll get more cuts.

The same with guilt and remorse. Both have biological regulation pathways. They can occur for any number of reasons for different lengths and intesnities. They don't have to occur together (much like a cut and swelling). If you come form an environment where you are more likely to come under negative social pressure (say a highly restrictive religious indoctrine) then you'll feel guilt and remorse more often.

Also I think people should cut Vangelis some slack as English is her second language and there are some translation leaps.

She isn't alone in that respect on these boards, its up to each poster to ensure their post is understandable.

I also think that we have to move away from the idea that chemical brain structures imply universality as those too can be culturally relative. For example the high rate of alcoholism in some cultures, we wont mention which ones [cough], and the higher rates of schizophrenia and manic depression in some cultures which we also wont mention. And you also have to consider that environmental factors influence biology and adaptation.

Oh dear. The point has just sailed by you hasn't it?


Alcoholism is no different from promiscuity to all intents and purposes. If you grow up in an environment/society that makes alcohol a socially desireably substance, you will get higher rates of alcohol intake, no matter how foreign the drinking of alcohol is to humans (its a toxin for starters) - think about the people you know who don't like the taste of beer, but still drink it.

Sex is much the same. If someone grows up in a society that is set up to emphasise casual sex as a socially desirable thing that you should be doing. You will be influenced by that. Even though it is biologically unatural.

Just because you are hardwired to be inclined to act in a certain manner, doesn't mean you are rigidly bound to that act that way. Thats what being humanis all about.

Schizophrenia and depression are biological by the way. Conditions caused by abnormal neurochemical release. Going into what the factors here are is another thread entrirely.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3219879

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,6000,493358,00.html

The Guardian article refers to an evolutionary psychologist who has a number of hits if you Google him.

Wonderful. However I could put up a website with alot of crappy ideas written by me, stick his name on the page somewhere and hey presto, google hit!

That said here again we see the problem. Here we have a situation where two people give their opinions on the subject matter to a journalist. This does not mean that the opinions of that peson is the scientifically help opinion of the community. It is just the opinion of that particular scientist. Thus it cannot be taken for anything other than that.

Many scientists do disagree. Usually this happens when someone puts forward a theory that does not have suitable evidence. Thus you need to go to a publication that is reviewed by scientific peers. This is an system that basically ensures that when a scientist writes something for publication, other scientists check that it is a valid interpretation of results and not just an opinion.

Victor

psi wrote:

Alcoholism is no different from promiscuity to all intents and purposes. If you grow up in an environment/society that makes alcohol a socially desireably substance, you will get higher rates of alcohol intake, no matter how foreign the drinking of alcohol is to humans (its a toxin for starters) - think about the people you know who don't like the taste of beer, but still drink it.

While alcohol abuse is regrettable, we aren't alone in this regard. Elephants (amurulla berries), monkeys (anything they can get their hands on) and birds (mostly fermenting fruit) are known to seek out alcohol. Many other animals won't shy away from alcohol (dogs, cattle), while I can only think of horses that reject alcohol - it spooks them (or maybe its the drunk people spooks them, not sure.)

GuanYin

Victor wrote:

While alcohol abuse is regrettable, we aren't alone in this regard. Elephants (amurulla berries), monkeys (anything they can get their hands on) and birds (mostly fermenting fruit) are known to seek out alcohol. Many other animals won't shy away from alcohol (dogs, cattle), while I can only think of horses that reject alcohol - it spooks them (or maybe its the drunk people spooks them, not sure.)

its slightly different from binge drinking and alcoholism. Incidently, can I see some links for that, not that I disbelieve you, more that I'd be interested by what you infer by "seeking out". Also, the levels of alcohol in those food sources would not lead to the level of intoxication we are talking about.

You know the way I mention the difference between scientific journals and "stuff you read on the internet"? Case in point. Many people could go away taking your post as meaning "Animals go out and get drunk too" :rolleyes:

Victor

psi wrote:

"stuff you read on the internet"?

No, Discovery Channel.

http://african-tradition.com/wine/product_info.php/products_id/77
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2002/02/17/lifestyle/life09.asp

Vangelis

Gordon wrote:

Are there pills for everything these days? Get rid of guilt with a pill, hunger relief with a pill, lust with a pill, excessive crying with a pill? With all these wee chemical pathways being blocked we would end up a big blob of cabbageness right?

Maybe there exists a pill to quosh male libido and/or to heighten the female libido? Would you give one of these to your partner Vangelis - or would you take one yourself?

Heheheheheheh!!!!!
I don't need any pills, Gordon. I'm perfectly fine.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Also I think people should cut Vangelis some slack as English is her second language and there are some translation leaps.

I haven't said anything I haven't intended to say.
And I can read perfectly fine(awaiting psi's critique for that one).

PSI, when I gave the example about taking a pill for my guilt. You stated that
"I'm not too up on this one, but guilt is one of the symptoms associated with depression and bipolar disorder. It can be countered by pharmacological means.

That is, there is a chemical pathway in the brain that may be blocked/activated which stops the feeling of guilt. Ergo, the pathway for guilt is a chemical one."

The two bold lines. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seems like you are saying that guilt can be cured by pharmaceuticals. And when you connect guilt with mental disease here it seems like you are saying that guilt is unnatural. Or do you mean that depression and bipolar disorder can be cured by medications?

This has nothing to do with my poor understanding of English. I've learned English for 9 years. However, your wording was puzzling.

Also, I had totally forgot about the examples of books you suggested for me. I anticipate that I should have money soon so that I can at least order one of them.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

The two bold lines. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seems like you are saying that guilt can be cured by pharmaceuticals. [/guilt]
Nope I didn't say that.

And when you connect guilt with mental disease here it seems like you are saying that guilt is unnatural. Or do you mean that depression and bipolar disorder can be cured by medications?

No I said neither of these either.

Forgive me, but sometimes I find it hard to tell if you are deliberately being obtuse (as you were in the post about making choices) or if you really miss the point.

To clairfy, depression and bipolar disorder are conditions that are either associated with or caused by altered neurotransmitters in the brain.

Now, one of the feeling associated with these conditions is an unshakable and unreasonable feeling of guilt - it could be about something specific or nothing in particular - but it is usually an unwarrented level of guilt.

Treatment of these conditions is common. Drugs are given that counter the neurochemical imbalances to varying degrees of success. When they are successful, they remove the feeling of guilt.

So the observation is, drugs that target chemical receptors in the brain, stop someone feeling guilty. This merely implies that guilt is a physiological based phenomenon.
At present we do not have enough knowledge on the subject to state anymore.

This has nothing to do with my poor understanding of English. I've learned English for 9 years. However, your wording was puzzling.

I never suggested it was.

Also, I had totally forgot about the examples of books you suggested for me. I anticipate that I should have money soon so that I can at least order one of them.

Well they're still in the posts so go back and look.

As a guide, for someone with a very basic understanding of genetics, you could do far worse than Matt Ridley. Sometimes he oversimplifies, he made some assumptions in older books that have since provved incorrect, but he still writes a very accessible entry level book that can be enjoyed on several levels.

lazydaisy

Psi,

I think you're being a bit snooty. This is a HUMANITIES forum not the SCIENCE forum. I need laymans language as a I am not a scientist.

I see the value in peer reviewed scientific journals but unfortunately I cannot afford to buy books whenever you post a reference. For me the internet is the most affordable and most efficient way of accessing information. If you find my sources to "popular" I dont know what to tell you. Perhaps you should argue with the people on the science forums.

As for guilt, depression, etc could you argue that it is a cognitive mishap, falulty reasoning, misperception, etc, which is causing the chemical reaction in the brain which then causes the depression, bad feeling etc? Cognitive therapy has very high rates of success with treatment of mild to clinical depression.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Forgive me, but sometimes I find it hard to tell if you are deliberately being obtuse (as you were in the post about making choices) or if you really miss the point.

Absolutely not. It was just hard to catch your meaning. I think that I should ask you if I understand you correctly first, and please don't be angered by that, before I give an answer.

To clairfy, depression and bipolar disorder are conditions that are either associated with or caused by altered neurotransmitters in the brain.

Are you sure? Could you please explain or provide a website that explains the chemical connection with depression?

Got to go now.

Kell

Vangelis wrote:

When one needs therapy for guilt-feeling, isn't that because the feeling of guilt is excessive/compulsive/detrimental?

ALL guilt is detrimental. As someone pointed out earlier, there is a disparity in thought between psychologists and the medical profession as regards whether guilt is a biological process or purely a psychological one. I say psychological and learned from environment.

You dont know you have hurt someone unless they point it out to you. Guilt is a feeling based on how your interaction with other people causes you to feel.

If you fúck someone up and they choose not to tell you, do you feel guilt? If they do choose to tell you and as an "evolved human being" which you continuously point out that modern man/woman is, you should learn that you have choice in what reaction you choose to have.

Real self development is knowing that you have a choice in everything, including which emotions you allow to affect you.

As regards your earlier comment, if your description of sick to the stomach, nausea and sometimes actuall sickness born out of guilt are your own experience, I think I would call that debilitating- no?

EDIT- Mistook Wicknights earlier comments re guilt as being your own. Last line does not apply to you Vangelis.

K-

Vangelis

Then I'd like some thoughts on how life will be better without guilt.

How can guilt be detrimental if it lasts only for a short moment for instance right before having said sorry and squared up with the one you've hurt?

Kell, I didn't describe any sick stomachs or nausea.
These things can be caused by many other moods and feelings too.

Does anyone think that there can be a society free from guilt?
How will this society function in their opinion?

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Psi,

I think you're being a bit snooty. This is a HUMANITIES forum not the SCIENCE forum. I need laymans language as a I am not a scientist.

I believe I explained it in very clear laymans language - essentially in my very first post on the thread.

I see the value in peer reviewed scientific journals but unfortunately I cannot afford to buy books whenever you post a reference. For me the internet is the most affordable and most efficient way of accessing information. If you find my sources to "popular" I dont know what to tell you. Perhaps you should argue with the people on the science forums.

I have no problem with popular, so long as its accurate. Basically the argument is thus - don't believe anyold crap you read on the internet without reliable sources to back it up.

As for guilt, depression, etc could you argue that it is a cognitive mishap, falulty reasoning, misperception, etc, which is causing the chemical reaction in the brain which then causes the depression, bad feeling etc? Cognitive therapy has very high rates of success with treatment of mild to clinical depression.

Well yes, thats why it occurs in relation to conditions like depression.

The point is, the drugs used act in a very specific way. Usually by increasing or decreasing binding of a chemical in the brain. IF this action effects feelings of guilt - then the pathway of guilt is attributed to the action of that drug.

Or in question form. Can you theorise by what other means the physical action of a chemical would inhibit feelings of guilt (regardless of source) if the feeling of guilt is not chemically mediated?

nesf

lazydaisy wrote:

I think you're being a bit snooty. This is a HUMANITIES forum not the SCIENCE forum. I need laymans language as a I am not a scientist.

He did use layman's language and didn't get technical. Psi is someone who I've never seen to cloud his posts behind a layer of technical terms. He used words that you'd see in newspapers in this country. Hardly technical language tbh

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Are you sure? Could you please explain or provide a website that explains the chemical connection with depression?

Got to go now.

If you go search the science/biology forums you'll find some postings on this - I know I posted on it before.

Otherwise a quick google shows that this website seems OK for a basic overview.

Otherwise, University of Aberdeen have excellent course notes online here.

Scroll down to the presentations on Central Neurotransmitters and the first two touch on it and there is more in the laters ones.

Some are very science heavy (the lectures are aimed at 3rd year science students) however there is a nice introduction to neuropharmacology and you should be able to get the gist of the text.

Kell

Vangelis wrote:

Kell, I didn't describe any sick stomachs or nausea.

You didnt read my post then did you?

Its not just a shift in attitude towards guilt per se that is required for society to function correctly and gainful for the individuals involved.

If humans were as evolved as we should be, if you hurt me, I would be able to figure out exactly why you had done so and adjust my thinking so I wouldnt be hurt by what it was you had done.

In the hurt/guilt argument, if people realised they had a choice in how they choose to feel, no-one would suffer from either emotion. And why should you given that both are destructive.

K-

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

ALL guilt is detrimental. As someone pointed out earlier, there is a disparity in thought between psychologists and the medical profession as regards whether guilt is a biological process or purely a psychological one. I say psychological and learned from environment.

Well as I said before, there is a fair amount of evidence that guilt is chemically mediated. In fact, all psychological feelings are biological process, seeing as all positive/negative feelings are down to neurochemical release.

Aside from that, there is an evolutionary hypothesis regarding guilt that goes something like this.

Human, at some stage reached a bottleneck in our population. That is, our ancestors at one stage numbered as low as a few tens of thousands - this is fact, we know this from analysis of our genome. Apart from the logistical inbreeding, this probably contributed towards/arose from a few traits such as our tendancies towards communities, monogamy and our status as omnivores. It all probably happened because our brains started getting bigger.

Big brains need protein. The obvious sources of protein were either scavanged food like nuts or meat. We shifted towards omnivorism (a word?) because it was an obvious way to increas ethe chances of finding a high protein food. Smaller females foraged for roots/nuts/vegitation while also tending the young.

Larger males entered the riskier business of hunting. This required co-operation between male hunters. For the most part, animals people ate were faster, more agile, bigger, stronger, bigger toothed, bigger clawed, thicker hided than humans... every so often they were all of the above. Humans continued developing bigger brains and veered towards hunting/communicating, maybe even strategy.

When hunting failed, smaller females could be relied on to supply food with fruits, vegitation and nuts (protein!). This promoted monogamy. Apart from the mating strategy, a monogamous relationship increased the chance of young surviving as "food sharing" between male and female increased the chance of food. If there was no vegetation, meat could be hunted. If hunting was unsuccessful, vegetation could be relied on. This sexual division of labour may have been oneof the driving forces of monogamy.

Food sharing also lean to an increased complexity in the brain. If yo are co-operating in a team and sharing food, you need to remember who your allies are, who owes you food and who you owe food too.

From a community survival point of view, freeloaders endangered the community (or even the species) as a whole. So perhaps self-check mechanisms such as remorse/morality kicked in to counter the increasing intelligence of the species.

For if you were caught cheating the community, you faced eviction or even death. As man became less likely to be conned and cheaters in the "food/resource sharing" endeavour became more likely to be spotted, from an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense to weed out this type of behaviour (remember, we are early humans at this stage, not the philosophers of today) and an easy way to do it would be to evolve the mechanisms by which associative morality might work.

Now this is very different than saying we evolved guilt. What we probably evolved was the wiring in our brain to have an environmental pressure guide us towards a negative feeling. Guilt is a learned thing. You cannot feel guilty about something that you don't know is bad. But once the environmental seed is planted, the mechanism can play its role.

Now, nice story aside, this is theory. There is evidence in the paeleontology and evolutionary genetics of humans, but we can't observe evolution (or early human behaviour) so we can't be sure. We can look at similar species and observe their behaviour too, that helps, but all in all this comes under best guess with the evidence at hand.

It does make sense from what we know of humans though and as theories go, its one of the better ones.

lazydaisy

PSI,

When I said I needed layman's language, I was explaining to you why I don't read scientific journals, your preferred sources, I was not commenting on your explanations. So I was saying that I cant provide you with those sources because I dont read them, and if you really need them then the science forum is a better place to find them. That's all.

I know better than to believe averything I read whether its on the internet or in print. The same wisdom of not believing everything you read applies to all media, electronic or paper. And Im sure you are aware of the politics which are involved in science and medical journals. Generally, I listen to audio lecture, that is my preferred way of learning as I have a better aural memory than I do visual, but it would be silly to post links to those, as I doubt people have the time or inclination to listen to 2 hour lectures by scientists. Nor am I aufait with how to reference which part of the lecture I get my info from, so I look for similar information from other sources that I can reference easier.

Im not sure I understand your question about guilt being mediated through chemical processes. Are you asking how to inhibit it with something other than drugs?

I agree with the poster who mentioned self development being about learning you have a choice in everything. I agree with this at least in most instances, the one that I have a problem buying into this is with bereavement - let's say of a parent, child, or other close bond. How do you think your way out that?

Vangelis - what benefit does guilt do for anyone? People do the most stupid, destructive things because they feel guilty. People redress the wrong they have done to a friend for an infinite variety of reasons, and not all to alleviate their own feelings of guilt.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

PSI,

When I said I needed layman's language, I was explaining to you why I don't read scientific journals, your preferred sources, I was not commenting on your explanations. So I was saying that I cant provide you with those sources because I dont read them, and if you really need them then the science forum is a better place to find them. That's all.

Ok, then provide sources that are accredited? Can you provide a source that has reliable up to date references?

I mean, you're basically asking us to accept a point of debate that you can't back up with any reliable source.

hrmmmmm

I know better than to believe averything I read whether its on the internet or in print. The same wisdom of not believing everything you read applies to all media, electronic or paper. And Im sure you are aware of the politics which are involved in science and medical journals.

Care to provide an example of this?

Science and medical journals are self-regulated, mainly because they have to pass muster with peers (many of whom are competing peers) before they are published.

Politics in science tends to go as far as allowing weaker impact science into bigger journals than they should be in but at no point do people get away with publishing fraudulant papers. Those that have tried were quickly caught out, because when people repeat the experiments or re-examine the findings (and there is ALWAYS someone who will repeat or re-examine your work) they copped on.

So I'd like to see what evidence you have of scientific politics allowing incorrect science to be publsihed in peer reviewed journals without comment or detection.

Or is this another one of your "facts" that cannot be backed up with sources?

Generally, I listen to audio lecture, that is my preferred way of learning as I have a better aural memory than I do visual, but it would be silly to post links to those, as I doubt people have the time or inclination to listen to 2 hour lectures by scientists. Nor am I aufait with how to reference which part of the lecture I get my info from, so I look for similar information from other sources that I can reference easier.

Depending on what the course matter is, they will mention those who first postulate a theory or make a discover or derive an equation. Surely you have heard names mentioned in your lecture tapes? From there it is but a case of sourcing details on the original work.

Im not sure I understand your question about guilt being mediated through chemical processes. Are you asking how to inhibit it with something other than drugs?

No, the question is:
"If the mechanism for guilt, has no physical or chemical basis, then why can chemical medication alleviate guilt in neurological conditions?"

Vangelis - what benefit does guilt do for anyone? People do the most stupid, destructive things because they feel guilty. People redress the wrong they have done to a friend for an infinite variety of reasons, and not all to alleviate their own feelings of guilt.

An evolutionary mechanism to deter people from carrying out actions that may eliminate them from a community.

Like most emotions/feelings they take a new dimension when human intelligence comes into play.

lazydaisy

Psi,

Who is paying for the research that is then published in these journals? How do the journals pay for their publication? Where do you buy them? Do they have online copies?

Im not automatically discrediting your sources the way you have done with mine, but really lets be fair. As far as I understood the Guardian and the Economist are well respected for being up to date and credible. You're saying they are not? Well then what is up to date and credible in your eyes? Be specific with titles and or authors.

I dont understand why you are so accusatory of me. Im not asking anyone to do anything. Im not asking people to accept anything at all. I didnt realise I was on a witness stand here. What you think Im working on some elaborate plot to trick people? I have provided sources, you have elected to ignore them or not believe them. If you dont accept them, there's nothing I can do about that. Ive talked about this already. Are you deliberately trying not to understand what Im saying??

Im assuming that the question about the chemical mechanisms of guilt was not directed as me, as I never said there was no connection between the emotions and the body.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Psi,

Who is paying for the research that is then published in these journals?

Research comes from many different sources. Everything from private trusts, charities, healthboard funding, uiversity funding, hospital funding, private sector and then lots of other different catagories that may be a mix of any of the above or not.

How do the journals pay for their publication?

Institute libraries pay for subscriptions to the journals. Otherwise individuals pay per download.

Where do you buy them?

From the publication company or online.

Do they have online copies?

yes.

Are you going anywhere with this?

Im not automatically discrediting your sources the way you have done with mine, but really lets be fair. As far as I understood the Guardian and the Economist are well respected for being up to date and credible. You're saying they are not?

No but journalism is (A) simplified and (B) Subjective. Stories are always written with a slant.

The Guardian's Observer newspaper printed the Liam Lawlor crash story did it not?

That is the difference.

Well then what is up to date and credible in your eyes? Be specific with titles and or authors.

Your asking me to source references for you? Ehh I think not. If yo want to make an argument, you provide solid references.

I dont understand why you are so accusatory of me. Im not asking anyone to do anything. Im not asking people to accept anything at all. I didnt realise I was on a witness stand here. What you think Im working on some elaborate plot to trick people? I have provided sources, you have elected to ignore them or not believe them. If you dont accept them, there's nothing I can do about that. Ive talked about this already. Are you deliberately trying not to understand what Im saying??

This is a public discussion forum.

I'm discussing. You make points, I make points. I question your points, you question mine. I reaffirm, you reaffirm. etc etc

Im assuming that the question about the chemical mechanisms of guilt was not directed as me, as I never said there was no connection between the emotions and the body.

Probably not But you asked about it, so I replied

nesf

psi wrote:

No but journalism is (A) simplified and (B) Subjective. Stories are always written with a slant.

The Guardian's Observer newspaper printed the Liam Lawlor crash story did it not?

That is the difference.

I'd argue that the Economist is more than just journalism. It does present data and the analysis of it. Which if not as technical as it could be if it was aimed at an academic audience, is still relevant and credible. But that's in economics and social/political policy. It really doesn't do much from a scientific perspective. But I wouldn't just label it as journalism and palm it away.

Kell

psi wrote:

An evolutionary mechanism to deter people from carrying out actions that may eliminate them from a community.

It does beg the question though of how evolved we have actually become consdering we have developed a range of emotion, such as guilt, that is detrimental to self growth.

Well off topic, but the logical key to everything is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If everyone was open with everyone else on all levels, the detrimental feelings that people suffer from wouldnt have a place in society.

K-

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

It does beg the question though of how evolved we have actually become consdering we have developed a range of emotion, such as guilt, that is detrimental to self growth.

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press. Evolutionary superiority only occurs between species that are playing the same game - for instance humans over our direct lineage, who we competed against for survival and won.

We could not judge our evolutionary superiority over a tiger for instance, because our species and theirs are overcoming very different things in the environment.

If there was an evolutionary scale, we would not be very high in it. From an evolutinary point of view, pressure selects towards specialists. We on the other hand are a generalist. Is such a scale existed, species of bacteria living deep beneath the surface - or perhaps viruses -would probably be classed as the pinnacles of evolution. They do their jobs perfectly effectively and efficiently, they have very little extra mechanisms in their biology beyond what they need to survive and reproduce. The less an organism needs to change to master its environment, the more evolved it could be considered.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

If everyone was open with everyone else on all levels, the detrimental feelings that people suffer from wouldnt have a place in society.

Only when it comes to guilt from lying, it has little to do with unhappiness from other actions ...

If I have a girlfriend, go out and sleep with someone else, come back and tell her exactly what I did, she still gets upset and I still feel bad because she is upset. The truth does little to change that

Or, to use an example from before, if my brother has a gameboy and I come running up to him and knock him causing him to drop his toy, he cries goes running off and I feel upset and guilty. Truth/lie doesn't enter this example either, yet I still feel guilty and he is still upset.

lazydaisy

Kell, I tend to agree with you. I think guilt brings on more problems than it solves. If people were more open than yes we wouldnt be in half the messes we are in. People pleasing, emotional blackmail, control devices, passive aggression are all bi-products of guilt.

When you do things you dont want to do just to avoid offending or hurting someone's feelings that can be very destructive. For example, if I spend every Sunday with my mother and yet I cant stand her company, then I would end up very resentful of her. Whereeas, if I say to her, "I dont want to visit you because I find you very difficult to be around" then openning up that dialogue would be potential for a lot of growth where I can visit her without the feelings of obligation and guilt and we would have a much better relationship.

In WKs example, if you talk out why you slept with someone else then you get to a more honest place about your relationship with your GF. Maybe you cheated because you lack self control, maybe its because your feelings for your GF have changed, maybe any number of reasons. Maybe if you were honest from the beginning that you like to sleep with more than one person, than she wouldnt have been dissappointed in your character.

The truth can change a lot about how bad or good you feel about something. At the very least she knows the person she is dealing with. If you didnt have to see her hurt would you have felt any better or was it her pain and not your sleeping around that made you feel bad?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press. Evolutionary superiority only occurs between species that are playing the same game - for instance humans over our direct lineage, who we competed against for survival and won.

Would to say that we as a species are competing against any other animal species right now. It feels like we're the only ones who have fully conquered all "hardships".

Hm?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Guilt is a learned thing. You cannot feel guilty about something that you don't know is bad. But once the environmental seed is planted, the mechanism can play its role.

I see. But languages, facial expressions and gesticulations are also learned things. What would we do if we weren't capable of received other people's messages?

Is guilt in any way 'wrong' in any given scenario? Or has anybody implied that guilt is 'wrong', that it shouldn't exist?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Would to say that we as a species are competing against any other animal species right now. It feels like we're the only ones who have fully conquered all "hardships".

Hm?

It might feel like that from our perspective, but I'm pretty sure that if you pop down to a volcanic springs several thousand feet below sea level, you might find some vent dwelling bacteria that will have conqured the hardships of the environment better than you.

No species competes against another species in evolutionary terms. Anyone who suggests this doesn't understand evolution. You compete with members of your own species (or very, very similar species) for survival. The only creatures we have competed against in evolution is other homnids.

Occasionally you will get an evolutionary arms race between species, where a prey will develop bigger horns and thicker hide and a predator will develop bigger claws and bigger teeth, but the prey and predator aren't competing.

Its in neithers interest to wipe the other out (the predator would lose its food source and the prey would face food shortages due to over-population). The animals that they are competing with are the ones that DON'T develop the features above. In some cases developing these things isn't beneficial. The giant elk and the sabre-tooth tiger went this route. Both were victims of the unsuitability of their evolution to their surroundings.

I see. But languages, facial expressions and gesticulations are also learned things. What would we do if we weren't capable of received other people's messages?

This question is answered within the post you took the question from. The theory is mechanisms for emotions like guilt, developed from or along with the capacity to communicate and form social bonds.

Is guilt in any way 'wrong' in any given scenario? Or has anybody implied that guilt is 'wrong', that it shouldn't exist?

Well imagine if a group of pre-civilisation humans had emerged with an inability to form bonds and the feelings that associate with them.

They wouldn't have occured in clumps, there would have been scattered incidences of these individuals throughout the population.

Assume these humans may not have been able to recognise the community imperative towards co-operation or bond-forming with partners and violated tribal practice - maybe stealing, raping females, refusing to share food and resources.

These individuals would have been dealt with by the tribes, either by banishment or perhaps even deaths. This would prevent the widespread growth of such individuals in the population. By and large the ones who felt emotions such as guilt would do better in society.

Does any of this ring true today?

Kell

An evolutionary mechanism to deter people from carrying out actions that may eliminate them from a community.

Your words psi.

psi wrote:

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press.

Also your words psi.

Are they not in direct contradiction to eachother?

K-

Vangelis

psi wrote:

...you might find some vent dwelling bacteria that will have conqured the hardships of the environment better than you.

I don't live in a volcano then.. Thank heavens for that!

No species competes against another species in evolutionary terms. Anyone who suggests this doesn't understand evolution. You compete with members of your own species (or very, very similar species) for survival. The only creatures we have competed against in evolution is other homnids.[/QUOTE]

Does not species compete with species about territory and nutrients?
Does not one species adapt to another's self defense mechanism so that it can hunt it as prey and eat it?
Where does interspecific competition come in? I've read about that, that is' competition between species within any environment.
Is this not true?

Occasionally you will get an evolutionary arms race between species, where a prey will develop bigger horns and thicker hide and a predator will develop bigger claws and bigger teeth, but the prey and predator aren't competing.

Interspecific competition?

Its in neithers interest to wipe the other out (the predator would lose its food source and the prey would face food shortages due to over-population). The animals that they are competing with are the ones that DON'T develop the features above. In some cases developing these things isn't beneficial. The giant elk and the sabre-tooth tiger went this route. Both were victims of the unsuitability of their evolution to their surroundings.

This question is answered within the post you took the question from. The theory is mechanisms for emotions like guilt, developed from or along with the capacity to communicate and form social bonds.

I guess..

Well imagine if a group of pre-civilisation humans had emerged with an inability to form bonds and the feelings that associate with them.

They wouldn't have occured in clumps, there would have been scattered incidences of these individuals throughout the population.

Assume these humans may not have been able to recognise the community imperative towards co-operation or bond-forming with partners and violated tribal practice - maybe stealing, raping females, refusing to share food and resources.

These individuals would have been dealt with by the tribes, either by banishment or perhaps even deaths. This would prevent the widespread growth of such individuals in the population. By and large the ones who felt emotions such as guilt would do better in society.

Does any of this ring true today?

Hmm.. African insurgency soliders commit mass-rapes of women. Nobody does anything... but they complain about it so..

There are still psychopaths, criminals and rapists. Should we kill them to prevent them for producing off-spring? That reminds me of a book I just read about the psychopathic personality. The psychologist author of the book suggests that we all have some psychopathic tendencies within us.

I have a suggestion: Let's volunteer to annihilate our own species!!
No, that's just my dry humour.

Are you saying that guilt prevents us from doing harm to others? (Or at least it is an attempt to do so..)

Vangelis

Kell wrote:

Your words psi.

Also your words psi.

Watch out! He is a 'student of life'! He is omni-potent! ...or at least omni-questioning!

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

Your words psi.



Also your words psi.

Are they not in direct contradiction to eachother?

K-

How so? An evolutionary mechanism occurs within a species. So evolutionary mechanisms are what cause divergence or split in an evolutionary tree. Ie: homo-erectus and homo-sapians are separated by evolutionary mechanism.

A so called evolutionary scale is usually used to imply that humans are "more evolved" than bacteria. This "scale" is a nonsense because humans and bacteria aren't facing the same selection pressures in their evolution.

The two terms have no relation to each other per se and I don't see how you think they may contradict each other. Unless, you try take them out of context and compare them, as you seem to have done.

If on the other hand you read both my posts and understood them, I don't think you would see a conflict.

Could you explain *how* you feel this is the case?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Does not species compete with species about territory and nutrients?
Does not one species adapt to another's self defense mechanism so that it can hunt it as prey and eat it?
Where does interspecific competition come in? I've read about that, that is' competition between species within any environment.
Is this not true?

Again, I think I answered this in the post you are quoting.

Species may compete with each other for resources and they may contribute to enivironmental pressures for evolution, but this isn't evolutionary competition.

Proto-rhinos and proto-giraffe's probably competed for the same resources. Rhino's emerged from proto-rhino's and they were stonger and more fierce and could fight off proto-giraffes and proto-rhinos. Meanwhile with the declining access to food, the giraffe evolves from the proto-giraffe which has access to food unavilable to the others.

The proto-giraffe and proto-rhino soon die out while the evolved specialised species thrive. This is a vast over-simplification, but it shows that the rhino species and giraffe species were only in competition with themselves, not each other.

Hmm.. African insurgency soliders commit mass-rapes of women. Nobody does anything... but they complain about it so..

Well you see this is modern humans we are talking about.

There are still psychopaths, criminals and rapists. Should we kill them to prevent them for producing off-spring? That reminds me of a book I just read about the psychopathic personality. The psychologist author of the book suggests that we all have some psychopathic tendencies within us.

Why would you suggest that I am implying we should kill anyone?

What purpose does that serve to your argument? I'm actually interested in you answering this question, because your reaction to my posts tend to be imply I am making some ridiculous suggestion that I am not.

Is this how you protect your belief, trying to unjustly ridicule those who oppose your point of view?

To answer your question, I believe for the most part, it is the practice of the human race to exclude psychopaths from the community when identified. I don't believe that prison inmates convicted of serious crume and those declared insane are given leave to procreate.

I have a suggestion: Let's volunteer to annihilate our own species!!
No, that's just my dry humour.

Again you do this. Is this the conviction of your belief?

Apart from being rude and ignorant, its not strengthening your case.

Are you saying that guilt prevents us from doing harm to others? (Or at least it is an attempt to do so..)

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Watch out! He is a 'student of life'! He is omni-potent! ...or at least omni-questioning!

Three incidents of comments like this in as many minutes..

You come across as extremely secure, honest.

nesf

psi wrote:

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

Just curious. Are you suggesting that there is both a biological and learned social aspect of guilt? It would seem that you are suggesting that guilt prevents, to some extent, "immoral" actions because we have learned that bad action = guilt as we develop as children? Akin to the example of eating something specific giving you a disgusting taste and the inclination of someone (or an animal) not choosing to do it again because of the memory of the disgusting taste?

Could you say though that guilt is simply a social responce or a learned behaviour? i.e. it was a natural outcome of forming social groupings rather than a specific mechanism that actually evolved? I'm thinking along the lines here that guilt seems to be something learned rather than something you are born with. A young child might torture an animal and "not realise what they've done". Yet an adult mightn't do this if they've been taught/conditioned that torturing animals is bad. But if they've been taught/conditioned to not care about animals then they mightn't feel guilty over doing it.

GuanYin

nesf wrote:

Just curious. Are you suggesting that there is both a biological and learned social aspect of guilt?

Broadly yes, specifically, no.

It would seem that you are suggesting that guilt prevents, to some extent, "immoral" actions because we have learned that bad action = guilt as we develop as children?

Well I'm suggesting that a biological mechanism to favour tribal complience may have evolved. It may have come as part of a big brain, it may have come separately.

The terms "immoral" and "guilt" are terms and meanings we have implied - I'm suggesting that the negative feelings that are attributable to chemical pathways borne out of deviating from learned tribal behaviour or breaking formed gender-bonding may have evolved as a mechanism to prevent such actions.

We now call this feeling guilt and our "tribal" rules are far more complex these days, but generally behaviour where we act in ways that society frowns on could be called "immoral". Sooo ermmm, if you accept all that, then yes!

Akin to the example of eating something specific giving you a disgusting taste and the inclination of someone (or an animal) not choosing to do it again because of the memory of the disgusting taste?

yes, and we KNOW this occurs in animals, we can easily simulate it by giving them things that look nice but taste horrible to eat. They shy away. We do the same thing, but call the feeling attributed with it "revulsion".

If "feelings" are not borne out of biological events, then why do animals behave as we do? Its more likely that the biological event and sensation is the same, but brains havethe capacity to personify the sensation as "revulsion".

Could you say though that guilt is simply a social responce or a learned behaviour? i.e. it was a natural outcome of forming social groupings rather than a specific mechanism that actually evolved? I'm thinking along the lines here that guilt seems to be something learned rather than something you are born with. A young child might torture an animal and "not realise what they've done". Yet an adult mightn't do this if they've been taught/conditioned that torturing animals is bad. But if they've been taught/conditioned to not care about animals then they mightn't feel guilty over doing it.

Well thats kinda the point I was making. If a pathway that we will personify as guilt evolved, it didn't do so with any of todays scenarios in mind. All I'm suggesting is the pathway evolved to keep social compliance and allow the species a better chance of surviving. The actual conditioning is separate and indpendant to the mechnism.

Its much like the pathway that tells animals (and us) they have eaten too much. Its simply a mechanism that evolved to preserve the body and to limit use of resources. We know its a pathway, because enzyme deficiencies switch it off.

We personify this pathway as "hunger" or "being full". Its just the action of enzymes.

I'm suggesting that "guilt" is much the same. The question of social response or learned behaviour, dictates what activates the pathway, not the pathway itself.

nesf

psi wrote:

The question of social response or learned behaviour, dictates what activates the pathway, not the pathway itself.

*nods*

We're pretty much in agreement then. I was unsure from your earlier post(s).

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Species may compete with each other for resources and they may contribute to enivironmental pressures for evolution, but this isn't evolutionary competition.

Proto-rhinos and proto-giraffe's probably competed...

I get that point, but how can something not be evolutionary competition when evolution is all that happens? Species evolve traits to fight other species. In my opinion, that is evolutionary competition, a competition to survive. At least they say so on National Geographic.

Why would you suggest that I am implying we should kill anyone?

I was implying that myself actually.

What purpose does that serve to your argument? I'm actually interested in you answering this question, because your reaction to my posts tend to be imply I am making some ridiculous suggestion that I am not.

Is this how you protect your belief, trying to unjustly ridicule those who oppose your point of view?

I am no ridiculing your arguement, which are very good. I was suggesting that we help evolution on its course by letting people who are biologically fit die instead of nursing them, taking them to hospital, giving them medicines etc. It seems that we are detaining evolution by letting these people flourish and have off-spring. What do you think?

To answer your question, I believe for the most part, it is the practice of the human race to exclude psychopaths from the community when identified. I don't believe that prison inmates convicted of serious crume and those declared insane are given leave to procreate.

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases. Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen?

I am sorry if I appeared as rude, I was not.

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

Fair enough.