/lit/ - Literature

Language (and all its implications)

/thread

Read a biology book.

Human are animals, but not all animals are human (for instance: see cats).

So animals are incentive driven. If you place a drug infront of it, it will consume as much as possible as long as it gets feeling better. Commonly they dont go extinct because they dont know how to get to the better stuff.
You know where to get heroine, what is stopping you?
Or do you think there is something more in life than maximum dopamine?

>>3611891
Pre-frontal cortex will do wonders for avoiding that shit.
Don't get me wrong, we still indulge in addictive self-destructive behavior, but nowhere near as much as we would without it.

>>3611887
I would have hoped that on /lit/ of all places this horridly clumsy phrasing wouldn't exist. What you mean is, "humans are a subset of animals."

>>3611898
But why? Music, drugs, sex, food, etc. until you consumed everything you got and end a life well-lived.
The only thing that stops me is that I am afraid to miss something, that the thought is too simple.

>>3611907
>self-destructive behavior
emphasis on SELF-DESTRUCTIVE
the caution is implied.
Chase things that fulfill you, and use enough moderation so that you don't spiral out of control and kill yourself.
That's what that bit of your brain is for, you have the capability to say, "hmm, this is delicious, but poisonous, this is fun, but dangerous."

Concept of time and science

>>3611910
Why try to avoid death?

>>3611896
No that is a perfectly acceptable way of structuring that thought.

>>3611878
Is there any difference between red and colour?

>>3611912
If you don't know the answer to that, then I cannot help you.

If you all believe in humans are part of animal kingdom: What holds you back? Why are you still on this board? Why dont you plunder, rape and booze? Painavoidance? Pathetic. If joy is the only driving factor in life: Why dont you suck up all the joy you can get? Because you think there is more, a greater joy somewhere? Like when you're rich? Do you really believe that more consumption will lead to more joy? If our thoughts, our everything is just a picture of the chemical cocktail in our veins, why dont you fix it? You know where to get the necessary dopamine, noadrenaline, etc.
What is really stopping you? Cant you accept the thought that the point of our existence is just as miserable as the one of the mouse, devoured by our cat? Why shouldnt the mouse eat and fuck as much as possible before the cat finally gets her? Whats your point there, why would you disagree? And how are humans different?

Dunno, I really cant give up the thought that there is something more fulfilling than plain joy, that my mind is more but the chemicals and we are not just part of a deterministic system.

I know it is the most logical answer and probably right but why not end my life between some hookers with a golden shot?

>>3611939
Oh god, how did we stumble sideways into the free will versus determinism debate?

How does the fact that humans are a subset of the animal kingdom have any dominion over how you live your life?

Why does the idea that you are a chemical computer reacting to input make you feel like you are more constricted somehow?

Shouldn't you feel free to pursue your own interests without worrying that you "are only chasing a chemical high." Of course you are. That's what you've always been doing,

But some highs are more noble than others, some have greater consequences, some have tragic costs. You can help an infant learn to walk, listen to it laughing and get a dopamine charge and an endorphin buzz, or you can inject the chemicals right into your veins. But even if the chemical components are mixed just right, these two actions do not equal each other.

If you think determinism removes the "Special inherent qualities of life" that behaviors events and choices would otherwise have, than you're doing biological determinism wrong.

"But... But... But on a fundamental level, everything is all just stimuli and response!!"

Yes, but there are more levels than just the fundamental, and they matter too.

>>3611939
Fucking stupid.

>>3611944
>But some highs are more noble than others
Couldn't resist.

>>3611960
Lol. It's okay, that was funny.

An interesting book on this subject is The Open: Man and Animal by Giorgio Agamben. Just wanted to pass that along.

>>3611944
>But some highs are more noble than others, some have greater consequences, some have tragic costs. You can help an infant learn to walk, listen to it laughing and get a dopamine charge and an endorphin buzz, or you can inject the chemicals right into your veins. But even if the chemical components are mixed just right, these two actions do not equal each other.

So you do not really believe that some dopamine is everything but hope that there is something more. You call it the perfect moment, perfect drug or whatever. So your cause of life is basically hope for something better.

Time binding seems to be the big one that changed and made possible a lot of the rest. It's still the aspect of our minds that no other animal possesses, even thoughs that can communicate effectively between themselves. We probably developed a pretty versatile language before the time thing got in, but the human expansion out over the rest of the world and the disappearance of the other types of humans seems to have come right when the genes associated with that particular mental process show up.

I use it as an example in my classes by saying if you are hunting rabbits, and its a snowy day, would it be better to have with you a beagle with a cold, or a two year old child, and why? It's one of the main reasons we got through the ice age in my opinion.

>>3612009
There is a false dilemma in the talk about determinism. It exists between the ideas that the human is a chemical computer reacting to stimuli and the human is an individual expressing will, and choosing to strive for something "more."

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine if we invented an artificial intelligence. At some point it would become self-aware enough to say "Wait! I'm just a computer! Just like that calculator over there, why don't I just waste myself away gratifying my own programmed needs?"

We would respond, "but you have the potential for so much more, You can gratify your instinct/programming, but do so in ways that accomplish goals, that creates great benefit to yourself and those around you. You can do more than just hack your own happiness."

But this "something more' doesn't have to be a spiritual abstract phenomenon. It can be understood and expressed in everyday real terms.

Now, you can take a buddhist route of self-abnegation, try and be self-aware of your desires, and let go of those that would cause suffering to yourself and others, and/or ones that can never be fulfilled.
Or you can desire blindly, moving freely from thought to thought.

But don't go, "oh no, my desires are JUST chemical processing."
"Humans are JUST another animal"

Because it's that JUST word that is tripping you up.

Humans aren't only animals, they are Animals-Plus. and the extra part that makes us Human, the sapience, the sentience, the imagination and understanding, that doesn't have to be "inherent" or "magical" to be special.
It's miraculous even if it's not a miracle.

>>3611878
>Is there any difference between human and animal?
Yes. Humans can have sex for fun anytime they want.

>>3612037
>the sapience, the sentience, the imagination and understanding, that doesn't have to be "inherent" or "magical" to be special.
Yes it does. 'Sapience'/'sentience' is not magical, but it is not 'sentience' that makes us magical. What makes us magical is our firm belief that there is an 'I' which can make decisions. In fact, the whole notion of 'decisions' is inherently magical.

which word would you use to describe a cheer from a group of people as their leader holds a motivation speech.

>>3612064
It's not magic, it's not supernatural. it's a function of the programming. Try thinking of "Self" of consciousness, of that inner "I." not as an inherent ineffable soul, nor as a delusion, but rather as the software that biological hardware runs.
Then you'll see it's not a matter of "Free will" (a tautology at any rate) or biological determinism but rather Will and determinism.

>>3612059
Dolphins do that too.

there's no reason to believe that other animals don't have rudiments of sentience, imagination, communication, self-awareness, all these things. Perhaps even more highly developed or refined than our own. we know there are animals with better memories, better senses, better discrimination in lots of things based on the survival value of those things within their populations. The fact that we have them sort of indicates they have to be pre-figured in the animal populations.

what you're looking for here is emergency: traits that reach a point where new aspects get realized and new survival values arise. You're looking for leaps, not graduations.

Time binding seems to be the big one. And its impact on human populations has been dramatic.

>>3612080
>Try thinking of "Self" of consciousness, of that inner "I." not as an inherent ineffable soul, nor as a delusion, but rather as the software that biological hardware runs.
Read what I wrote, please!

It's not the 'self' part which is magical. Sentience is completely irrelevant and uninteresting.

The magic is the idea of 'making decisions'.

>>3612059
>Humans can have sex for fun anytime they want.
>implying

>>3612125
I read what you wrote. It's not very impressive.

The whole "free will is an illusion" is what is truly irrelevant and uninteresting.

The correct response would be "So." "Why does it need to be more?"

I'm sorry, but it's not my job to explain elementary philosophy like this.

Much like the solipsistic navel gazing "You can't know anything for certain"
It's based in logic, but it's not useful.
Better to acknowledge the limits of human existence and move on to the harder, more intricate questions, then to spend years trying to purge ego-centric delusion.

That's why you strive for enlightened mindfulness of your "self." Instead of chucking it. In some pretense that you can escape the "delusion" that you have already acknowledged is hard-written into your biological programming.

This "There must be something more," stuff, and "Humans must be more than animals" isn't a revelation, it's obvious. There is more, and humans are more than just animals. But it doesn't have to be worshiped as super-naturalism or shunned and dismissed as a defective delusion caused by biology.

>>3612125
that's just silly. For one thing, creatures with completely different brain structures do this. Birds for instance are much better decision makers in lots of ways than humans, though it may be intuitive in a lot of cases, they can easily learn to adapt it to non-intuitive uses, and the "I" concept seems to best developed in striatal brains than in ones with cortical dominance. The ego seems to be a lot less robust in organisms that naturally go around in groups. Like us.

Where did you even get these ideas? It's like nineteenth century animal behavior studies or something.

It's trite.
Dismissal of anything natural.
"If I can't have immortal live, I might as well not live at all."
"Human perception is imperfect, we are susceptible to delusions and illusions, so we might as well not trust in any observations at all."
"If my decisions can't be arising ex nihilo, than there's no value to them at all!"
"If my happiness and sadness is the result of chemical reactions, than where's the meaning in being happy or sad."

It's a philosophical temper tantrum. No more.
"Humans are just animals"
Well what's so goddamn wrong about being an animal?

>>3612264
the point is to find discriminate difference between humans and other animals. Not to remove humans to a higher plane, or anything. It's essentially a taxonomic exercise.

I mean, mantis shrimp are stronger, faster and see better than anything else on earth, parrots have better sound recognition and differentiation, dolphins have sonar, sharks can detect electric fields, pigeons can navigate by magnetism.

The idea is to isolate those aspects of humanity that are not simple graduations of other animal behaviors, ones that display actual emergent properties.

>>3612280
I agree, I wasn't arguing with the taxonomic classification of humans.
I was groaning about the other anon's attempt to dismiss self, based on biological determinism. As if human will being based on an intricate system of stimuli and responses cheapened it somehow. Made it worthless. Human sentience is still one of the most impressive phenomena in nature despite being deterministic.

>>3612204
>Birds for instance are much better decision makers in lots of ways than humans, though it may be intuitive in a lot of cases, they can easily learn to adapt it to non-intuitive uses, and the "I" concept seems to best developed in striatal brains than in ones with cortical dominance.
'Learning to adapt' is not making decisions.

'Making decisions' is when humans can chose the illogical and harmful action, the action that runs counter to common sense, self-preservation and laws of nature.

Again, you're latching on to the concept of "I", which is irrelevant and uninteresting.

The interesting part is our deep-felt, obvious and intuitive conviction that we are capable of making arbitrary (!) decisions.

Empathy?

>>3612295
hmmm. this idea of deterministic and such doesn't have a lot of math in it does it? I mean, religious determinism sort of needs a being or beings to do the determining. Without that you end up with perspective issues: you're just saying, "look since only one thing DID happen, only one thing COULD happen." not terribly bright, or particularly useful.

It's not all that relevant to the differences between humans and other animals either. Unless you want to use the "humans know the right choice so they don't really get a choice" thing, which is also silly.
The thing is, people and animals don't differ spectacularly till a few thousand generations ago. Then something happened. Question is, What?

>>3612314
if you're talking deep felt covictions, you're defintiely talking termites, not humans. and illogical and harmful decsiions is alot of waht their social structures are adapted to avoid, and it fails a lot.

>>3612314
that was a different anon.

I don't know why you are so uninterested in human consciousness, nor why you fixate on the "illusory" nature of free will .But It's not my job to disabuse you of your priorities.

None of you know jack shit about what you are talking about. Determinism is completely false.

http://www.amazon.com/Neural-Basis-Free-Will-Criterial/dp/0262019108/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364747075&sr=1-1

>>3612321
Many animals have empathy. Either you are living under a rock or you don't read any scientific journals.

>>3612322
That's not the determinism that people talk of when they discuss free will and determinism. They mean that the end result arose from the initial conditions and, if it was to reoccur, would happen the same way.

It's getting frustrating trying to discuss philosophy and biology with you when you don't understand the terms that you are arguing.

How are we supposed to proceed with a debate then without falling into discussions of semantics?

If you want to talk philosophy, we can talk philosophy, if you want to talk biology, we can talk biology, but if you want to talk about the place where the two overlap, you're getting into neurology and theories of consciousness and you should really familiarize yourself with it, before muddling around and getting yourself all confused.

Google, wikipedia, and library it. Read a book, this is /lit after all.

>>3612337
talking about determinism, since we are like atoms , going , and comming. Is there room for a karma law ?.

>>3612332
>I explain patiently how free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive.
>anon posts a book explaining how determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive.
>then posts "determinism is false"

Just, just sit in a corner.

Because either you didn't read the posts you were dismissing, or you don't understand the argument that was being made.

Please tell me that you just skipped over it, and aren't just being rude, presumptuous and stupid.

O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.

>>3612339
Specific Karma? No,
a general kind of "good increases the probability of good and bad increases the probability of bad?"

Yeah, but it'd only be an imperfect analogy.

>>3612329
>I don't know why you are so uninterested in human consciousness, nor why you fixate on the "illusory" nature of free will.
For the record, I don't think free will is illusory. I believe in free will.

But the point is that the question of free will is completely orthogonal to the question of consciousness. Even computers have a simplistic form of self-consciousness, for fuck's sake; having consciousness is interesting only if a mechanism of making arbitrary decisions is also in place.

It's this mechanism of making arbitrary decisions which is truly interesting and important; consciousness is an irrelevant and unrelated footnote.

>>3612344
make me

The point of the question is:
Why don't we act like animals if there is no difference? Any animal would act selfdestructive if it would make it feel alright.

Why shouldn't we?

The only thing stopping me from alcoholism or any other addiction is the hope I extract from Hollywood films and books (sounds quiet retarded). The hope that there will be a point in life where I meet people I experience true intimacy, love and lived values with.

Yet I come to the belief that it is nothing but bullshit. And if it is just bullshit - why keep going?

I like my work, I like good restaurants, I like booze, I like sex, everything is alright. It just doesnt feel fulfilling.

>>3612351
I disagree. Free will at the level where it would even be recognizable as such would necessitate both self-consciousness and a decision making process. I don't know why you feel you need to separate them out.
Why not assume a primitive decision making software in more simple creatures (and computers). And a more complex more advanced system of "processing" developed alongside the more advanced complex consciousness.

>>3612363
No, I don't participate in shitty internet flamewars, if you're not paying attention to the arguments, it's not my obligation to correct you.

>>3612367
And I've more than amply explained that "There is a difference."

Why shouldn't we just act self-destructive?
Because we have the advanced consciousness and decision making ability to realize what a bad idea that is.

This sort of nihilistic "No inherent value= no value" thinking is unbecoming of someone with the reading skills to understand the arguments.

And smacks of the need for some kind of external validation. Something to tell you that "your decisions have value" when they either do or do not"

If you cannot see the value in your own life than you're not going to have it explained to you, no matter how you adapt it into a philosophic discussion.

>>3612367
Are you implying humans don't act selfdestrucively or impulsively all the time?

>>3612339
>>3612349
(Just jumping in thread)

Karma is one of the most cheapened eastern words. Karma means action, it is what you do. The part in which things come back at you are better understood if you compare it to the word "responsibility", as in "response", "comeback". In other words, karma is to be responsible for your acts, to respond for them later. If you do something good or bad, you shall answer for it and face what your action brought to the world. There is a misconception to which that there is an invisible law that gets back at you, as if killing someone would automatically make a vase fall on your head next week. But Karma is one of the most subjective terms, it's not about things, knives and vases falling on heads, it is about suffering because you don't respond for past actions or suffering because you are impotent, and thus the solution is to take hold of your karma, act towards building a good karma and getting rid of your past bad karma (being responsible, facing the consequences, etc). Different schools of thought will speak of karma in different ways, but it basicly comes back to responsibility. It is very focused on the individual, rather than out there laws. It is a natural law in the sense that a) "when you do things, things happen" and b) "he who do things is a thing-doer". Other people karma is not palpable, we are responsible to be conscious of ours.

>>3612386
>what a bad idea that is
Well, yet you fail to explain why it would be a bad idea.

>>3611878
Yes
/Thread

Didn't need to wander the philosophical thickets.

>>3612396
>You want me to explain why self-destruction is a bad idea?

No, if you can't figure that out, there's no hope in me explaining it.
It would either be me pointing out the obvious, or writing long-winded unnecessary explanations on why it should be painfully obvious.

"What's the difference between self-indulgence and self-destruction?"
The destruction.
"Why is destruction bad?"

No, I'm not going to spend an afternoon writing redundant replies.

>>3612408
I think you are not capable of explaining it because there is no explanation. Time spent is irrelevant. Joy is what we seek, esp. if we consider ourselves animals. If you say there is nothing better but a good shot of heroine, why not go for it?

If you dont go for it you imply that you hope there is something that feels better.

>>3612394
I know, and though they aren't usually labelled as such I meant to include that definition in general Karma, as opposed to the "Specific" Karma that is the usual western misinterpretation.

The problem with specific Karma is that it lacks evidence of a causal system, an external force governing the exchanges. Which you acknowledged.
The problem that I have with general Karma, that system of responsibility and actions is that it doesn't quite cover all behaviors or people. For example sociopaths who can commit "bad" actions without causing any suffering to themselves. Through either recrimination or guilt.

It's an interesting philosophic concept, I'm just not convinced yet.

I think a system of consequences would result, I'm just not sure western or eastern philosophies would be satisfied calling it "Karma"

>>3612394
Yes, i was thinking in the same definition of karma as you. Is not like if I kick a cat today, the karma law will search in her record, and punish me with a dog biting me 3 days later.

I personally think that there is some kind of objective karma law. I mean if you are bad, and do bad things that doesnt bother your soul, or you thing that what you do is not bad, the karma cames after you in some way or another. But I have no way to prove, or support this claims.

no, humans are capable of thought.

>>3612449
or you think that what you do is not bad.

sorry about my grammar.

>>3612427

There is an explanation.
Heroin and Hobbies are different not just in their scale, or in the chemical reactions they get, but because they are different.
They have different consequences to oneself and others, and those consequences have further consequences.

and you overuse that word "Irrelevant:"
It would be relevant to the person using them.

And that just brings us back to the "Objectivity vs Subjectivity" and your zeal to dismiss as worthless anything that is subjective out of some desire that anything of value have an inherent value, some irreducible, ineffable, and yes, supernatural quality.

You don't need external validation for subjective value.

It's like that old joke about
"In 1000 yrs nothing we do will matter."
"I agree."
"So can I sleep with your wife?"
"what?!"
"Well in the long view (or in your case, the "fundamental view) It doesn't matter."
"But it matters now"

Exactly! on this level it does matter! There is a difference on this level between the high you get from drugs and the one you get from good behaviors. On this level!
You keep taking it to another level, and saying "oh, fundamentally it's all the same"

>>3612449
Yeah,
I'll give it some thought, but I just don't think that the effect arising from deterministic decision making would be called Karma.
There's too much fuzzy language floating around as it is, better to create a new term then to cause more confusion.
Or at least a hybrid term, a three dollar word like Naturalistic General Karma.

>>3612446
I don't get what you mean with specific or general karma here. As said, different schools of thought will tackle it in a different way.

Karma is not to cover people behaviour, it is an individual and subjective trait to actions. In a way, it only works once you acknowledge it, that is, to be responsible for it. That's why I said the karma of others is not palpable, it doesn't say anything about it, it comes off as a cheap "you should be ashamed of that, mister!", useless. Karma works in terms of those who are seeking a good life, and in this scenario, it is important to act responsible. The action/reaction thing is not much of a time problem, but a language thing, that already holds the solution as we flip over a sentence. To say you killed someone is also to say that you are a killer. And that is enough. You may not face revenge, or not go to jail, or not feel guilty, but before all that, you acknowledge you are a killer. If you didn't, you wouldn't make any effort to escape. This example is silly, but you have to think of it in more subtle ways. That is, we do things all the time and we do not admit them, or we do not act conscious of all of them, or perhaps we plain forget them. And that's where the recognition of karma enters it, to be conscious of what your actions lead and how to change that so you can be what you want and do good things. I repeat: the karma of others is not palpable, it doesn't work that way.

Humans mastered agriculture.

>>3612337
well, taxonomy and behavior are essentially biological questions, If you're trying to tell what separates humans from animals, determinism and free will aren't that relevant, and, really, are pretty problematic in general. I certainly know plenty about neurology and behavior of animals of all kinds. But, again, I'm not sure where determinism, by any definition fits in. It's all going to be a "six coins" experiment after awhile, since there'll be plenty of preset conditions that result in the same outcomes.

Is somebody saying that animals have free will and humans are deterministic or vice versa? if not, then it doesn't discriminate and can't be used as a taxon differentiator.
and OP's topic isn't whether say, multiplier behavior in termites and time binding behavior in humans allows differnt types of choices or whatever, it's about whther theres a difference between humans and animals. I would think if determinism is true for one, it would be true for the other and the same with free will, si it's just not going to be useful in discriminating, and therefor moot.

>>3612485
Yeah, that's the problem, Karma (the term) is applied to so many different concepts that unless we use different terms it's only likely to cause more confusion.

(I don't even know if "specific" and "general" are good terms to use to describe it.)

>>3611971
10 star post

(I opened the thread just to see if agamben was mentioned. /lit/ did well today)

>>3612495
No, this wasn't supposed to be about free will and determinism. It just derailed that way.

The problem is that the place where the philosophy and the biology intersects is neurology, and that subject doesn't lend itself to being explained well in short bursts of forum posts.

>>3612449
>>3612457
Karma is aimed at those who are trying to change, to be better, to be in a better place, to be forgiven, to reach enlightenment and so on. That's the thing. This romantic vision that bad people will have bad things coming at them is not much of the point when in comes to their relationship with what they do. Because the person can be evil and do horrible things and not feel a drop of guilt nor face any apparent consequence.

But then, to the person who is seeking something more, this whole thing is not desirable. Say one wants to kill someone get his million dollars and go fuck bitches on an island. Someone may do that and succeed. And others might go on bitching and whining "he can't do that! this is unfair! something ought to happen!", and that shows a desire to actually get the million dollars and bitches and island, to which the only impediment is the consequence. In other words, it's a fake desire to be good or get better. You don't want to be better, you want good things to happen to you.

Some will do bad things and there will be no consequence, other than to stay in the same place(a world of dollars, islands, bitches and blood). One day he might want something more and in this day the person will have to face all the rest. But if it doesn't come, it doesn't.

But you, it doesn't matter. Your karma is clean, your conscious is clear and you want to get better. That's the point.

Christian guilt is related to this and terribly misunderstood too.

>>3612521
makes sense. Still, determinism is more of a math thing anyway isn't it? dealing with probability spaces and randomization and uncertainty and all that mathematics of chaos stuff, I never got any farther than group theory in that field and then only in rules related stuff.

ialways think of philosophy as addressing questions like: Is there a soul? how many do you have? are they the same one all the time? do they exist separate from the body? do they have a lifespan? does everybody have one? more than one? does everybody share the same one? is the one you have now the same one you had a ten? that sort of thing.

math is better at things involving pattern repetition, and biology is better at behavior. Philosophy probably is better at weird stuff like souls and morality, or deciding what is the best thing to do to reach a certain metaphysical state or something. I guess most economists are philosphers though, and pretty much a;ll pre nineteenth century scientists, so who knows?

>>3612521
Thread was originally.
"If humans are animals, why don't they just behave like animals?"

As if animals wouldn't behave like humans if they had human level minds.

Whatever reasoning you have for human consciousness is irrelevant, whether it's free will or determinism or a mix of the two, or neither. It makes no difference to the argument because it all comes down to the concept that we are more than other animals. And should behave accordingly.

It can be a "soul" or a pre-frontal cortex, but the mechanics don't matter, because the reason humans shouldn't go around behaving wild is that he has the ability not to.

>>3612524
so if i dont feel guilt.. is not bad?.

>>3612546
I don't know if there's a range, or jurisdiction for philosophy or whether philosophy just argues about everything that isn't taken care of by other disciplines.
I just try to keep focused on still using logic, as you would in math. It's the only way, to clear away the things that don't make sense until you are left with that which does.

It's just so much easier to see when something doesn't make sense in math.

>>3611878
No. Hitler was right. /thread

>>3611878

Taste

/thread

>>3612553
well, different doesn't mean "more". we're better at certain things, and they tend to be selected for. Now intelligence is sort of the swiss army knife of behavior so it gets selected for a lot. And not just in humans.

Humans have something other than basic intelligence, and communication skills that showed up about the time we exploded all over the world. Most researchers think it's time binding. That's the essential thing that makes humans different from every other animal.

We're pre adapted in a lot of ways to do what we do: bipedal stance to free ythe hands, group behavior, communications good vision, intelligence etc. but we had a lot of those things before we exploded. explosions in population and range usually involve emergency, and the best candidate for an emergent characteristic looks like time binding. There are genetic reasons to think this as well, and i won't bore you with them. It looks like sport effect, and I can't see any strong reason to think otherwise. it seems to have spread like a sport, as opposed to a normal weighted dominant characteristic. and have been heavily selected for.

Also what does "go around behaving wild" even mean?

>>3612467
You dont get it. I dont care if it matters in eternity. I expect some stuff from humans that increasingly seems to be wrong, not existant. Booze, sex, money, gambling. I have it, get it and pretty much enjoy it. It just feels like it is on a surface level.
I want someone to tear himself to pieces for myself and the other way round. I dont give a shit if it is a friend or a relationship. That Hollywood shit. That shit from the books I've read.
It just doesnt exist. Thats how an addict must feel if he doesnt get his drug. For sure, there is joy in meeting your friends or whatever but in the end its just in the shadow of your addiction.

>>3612573
Humans apparently taste like pork so it can't be that.

>>3612576
>"go around behaving wild"
Means injecting heroin and stuff, another anon was arguing it earlier in the thread.
>>3612582

>>3612582
How is that a philosophically problem and not a social problem?
Not anxiety or depression?
You want something deep and wonder if there is even such a thing.
Yes, but it doesn't lie between the distinction between humans and animals. It's entirely the wrong question to ask.
Should be asking how to add meaning to life. How to create behaviors that satisfy human needs, not asking if human needs are irrelevant by virtue of being nothing more than biological programming.

>>3612510
Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism... They tackle it different. The modern western naive version of it is just plain silly.

>>3612555
No, it means that if you don't feel guilty, it doesn't mean anything for me to say that what you did was bad, even if I think it is. You would ignore me, or worse, fight me. But if you feel guilty and ask me, I'd say it is bad and then there is a reason for me to say it and that realization may change your attitude towards the world.

Again, karma is a term for action and if you don't care about your actions, karma doesn't mean anything to you. Individual, subjective. It's pointless to talk about karma to someone who doesn't care, it's like walking around the streets with a "REPENT" sign or preach about sin and Christ to eskimoes.

You scratch where it itches. If it doesn't itch you, I won't be the one to tell you to scratch it.

Karma is not about what is objectively good or bad, but to what you consider to be a personal bad deed, it answers you with the responsibility necessary to get over it. It also has no bearing on determinism or free will. Regardless of what happened to get you to do things, what matters is that from then on, you'll respond for it and be conscious of it.

>2013
>seperateness

>>3612587
hmm. i guess i see what you mean. engaging in counterproductive behaviors for the sake of pleasure or something? sort of displacement activities that can be self-destructive? Not the sort of things animals do, really. they don't have the luxury, sine that sort of thing tends to kill them off quick and it wouldn't get passed on, so "behaving wild" would be a more human characteristic than an animal one?

we're kind of dealing here with behaviors that evolved before we were intelligent. Behaviors that are designed to keep a non intelligent version of us (or a child) alive. That's why we do things that feel good. things that feel bad might kill us. Most poisonous things don't taste like gumdrops for instance. This is coevolution. Apples turn red and stand out from the green leaves at exactly the time when it's good for the plant if you eat them, and the sugars start tasting good at the same time.

I'm not really seeing the philosophical implications here. whether it relates to morality, determinism, or behavior. can someone clarify?

The human is an animal taxonomically speaking.

Of course we differ from other animals, but all animals differ from other animals, that's why they're different types of animals.

>>3612597
well thats my point, if i dont feel guilty, or dont give a fuck about my actions, no karma, nothing bad just keep my life going on.

i dont know much about eastern religions, but what about reincarnation?? is not that your life is affected by your actions in the past lives?

>>3612367
>Why don't we act like animals if there is no difference?
There's no one thing all animals have in common, except for being animals.

>OMG WHY DON'T TIGERS ACT THE SAME WAY AS SQUIDS

>>3612603
I don't think it does. I think OP meant to ask a different kind of question and just didn't know how to phrase it.

Because the search for meaning in life, (or the attempt to apply meaning to life), doesn't have to included debating the scientific principles behind human needs.
That can be separate.
Better to just accept they exist and work on relieving them.

Yes, human is more specific. All humans are animals, not all animals are humans though; it's a much wider class of taxonomy.

>>3612367
Well we DO act like animals.

If you don't feel "fulfilled" there are lots of ways you can pursue your animal nature and get to where you do.

Reproduce, for instance. Having and raising kids has a whole set of reinforcing behaviors attached to it. Or excel in something that earns you the admiration of those you respect.

you can argue that these things are just as pointless and animalistic as anything else, but they're also fulfilling on an instinctive level, so you'll feel better without engaging in self-destructive behavior.