The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
From http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...162&sc=I100322:
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Hi Tom, I'm pleased you picked up on this. I read it last week when my SciAm issue arrived in the mail. The sub-head for the article is:
Quote:
It is becoming increasingly evident that emotions provide the only real force that causes direction and choice of activities in all living things. In humans, emotions also cause us to conceptualize and think about things - and come to conclusions (behavior decisions). They are part of a closed loop, the purpose of which is to make us feel good. Emotions cause thinking - and emotions are the result of thinking. Thinking (conceptualizing) is a peculiar adaptation - an external subroutine that sometimes produces more useful results than behavior decisions based on more pure emotion - sans intellect. But, the only reality that living things can truly experience is through our emotions. Our most profound thoughts only have value according to the emotions they foster in terms of their percieved survival value. What we think about the world is just a crude caricature of that emotional reality. And yet, we are so certain that our thoughts and intellectual conclusions are the only reality worth knowing - that we go to war and kill each other in the name of those conclusions (Gods). Thinking may be useful - we have evolved to depend on it and can not now exist without doing a lot of it. But, the very objectivity that makes it useful, separates us from what is real on the emotional level - and that allows us to make bad decisions and reach unrealistic, self-destructive concusions. Margaret |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Quote:
It's good to hear from you and I'm glad you're still monitoring... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Quote:
The question is whether we humans are ever able to truly discern and evaluate reality and/or objective truth and make rational decisions and choices, that may be contrary to our emotions and/or preconceived beliefs/perceptions and behave accordingly—whether we can cognitively change/modify emotions/beliefs/perceptions through downward causation. If indeed the primitive, subconscious, subcortical “emotions provide the only real force that causes direction and choice of activities†in us, as MM and Tom seem to be claiming, then the bottom line is that we all, ultimately, are merely automatons. In which case whatever any of us happen to think or believe, or whatever our POV, it’s all, at best, an illusion having no more meaning or reality than whatever any random chimp, or any other animal, might happen to “think†or “believe.†In which case none of us are right or wrong about anything—we simply experience our illusions and the blind physical forces of natural selection will select for the illusions that happen to result in survival and the most offspring . . . in an indifferent universe of electrons, selfish genes, blind physical forces, and genetic replication. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Hi Tom, I don't want to overstate my case. It's just that we live in a society where left brain science is considered the only valid path to enlightenment. I see that view as a serious impediment. It's not that I don't appreciate the objective layers of reality that can become available through scientific pursuit. It's just that we don't understand how seriously un-objective that path actually is.
We are first of all, compelled to pursue scientific truth for emotional reasons - usually to do with identity. And that's good when the identity image we choose is actually to be an objective pursuer of truth - wherever it may lead. For many young scientists I'm sure that's the ideal. The problem is that eventually scientists become even more strongly attached to some idea or concept that they then champion. Their fame and fortune becomes a product of the success of that idea - and they can no longer be the objective scientist they claimed to be - or imagined themselves to be. Just like the political partisans in that study, they seek the emotional rewards of charting new territory by using their intellect to confirm (justify) their position. It becomes the window through which they see the world. For JimB it seems to be the emergent network stuff - which seems a useful window - though I don't fully understand it. For me, it is seeing behavior as the result of the emotion-mediated process that I have described. (Although, I certainly don't consider myself a scientist, as JimB is.) But, scientist or not, I believe that this is simply a result of being human. We are driven by emotion to do what we do. And we are driven to seek an emotional payoff for it. Our brains and our grasp of objective reality are tools for that purpose - nothing more. Our ability to uncover reality depends on how much our identity remains attached to that thankless ideal - a pursuit that must produce its own self-contained rewards. Because it is so difficult for humans to achive that idealistic state, we fortunately have a peer review system that serves to correct the inherent errors our emotionally driven intellects are certain to produce. That and the nature of funding for research means that science is largely a competitive ego-saturated pursuit. Perhaps it's the best system that can be realized, based on human emotion, as it is. But, just knowing that one's biases are sure to be quickly and ignobly exposed is a force for the better. If anything, scientific progress is much more the result of the design and healthy operation of that system, it seems, than to any particular scientist's intellect. Just some thoughts. Margaret |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Fred, you say that,
Quote:
However we interpret those estimates, is how we are compelled to act, in my view. There is only one causation, that being in our own percieved interest. And our emotions are the barometer of that index. We could not have evolved any other way. i.e. we could not have evolved to produce emotions that lead us to actions that are, on aggregate, against our own interest, against our survival - on any objective scale. The downward causation you speak of is really only a more refined method of generating more nuanced emotions - a way of elevating our emotional pleasure at contemplating those actions that you would consider more refined and less base. That's a perfectly human way to devolp. Our pre-frontal cortex seems to be the location where those emotional evaluations are made - and that is subject to learning as we grow. Our behavior can not be a way of acting in opposition to our net emotional estimate of the results of our actions. Your downward causation is a way of considering what you would call more refined inputs. But, the result will always be to act in regard to the summation of those inputs we do consider. You may call that downward causation. I would more accurately call it a summing of and greater appreciation for more refined inputs from possibly the social conscience but certainly the belief area of our brain into our decision mechanism. Your belief in God seems to compell you to find a soul-like mechanism that some of us are supposedly endowed with that can act in opposition to our nature. As I don't labor under that restriction I am free to see our behavior as the result entirely of what is in us already - of both our inherited nature that we are born with and the social nature we develop as we mature. I have no objection to you calling that the force of God as I believe I understand why you and others need to do that. But, you should not be offended when I and others see it simply as another facet of human nature. The mechanism operates the same for both of us. It will produce the same results given the same inputs. We do favor different inputs, however. Margaret |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Quote:
Quote:
(Although I find your incessant allusions to “God,†while mostly irrelevant and mildly annoying, somewhat amusing, and perhaps a bit revealing.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Quote:
Then, we CAN realize that our faith in one pretend 'god' is no more real than the faith put into other pretend 'god's. Then, we CAN stop the killing that all this mislaid faith causes. Then, we can add REAL meaning to our lives. Heaven, on Earth. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Since I'm not spending so much time here anyway - I'll offer you one extra chance to engage in this discussion politely. You say,
Quote:
When you say, "Nonsense", you are expressing an emotional response to my post. It is a borderline insult. It ususally signals stronger insults to follow in your posts. It is one example of what makes a discussion with you so useless, from my perspective. When you say, Quote:
Animal behavior is not random. It is the result of seeking specific emotional payoffs - the ones each species is designed to seek by its nature. If it were random then there would be no canine or feline or human nature, different from the others. When you say Quote:
You confirm this completely when you say, Quote:
I suspect that pointing this out and questioning the sincerety of your motives will make you even more angry and therefore this thread is probably at an end as far as you and I are concerned. Que lastima. Margaret |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Political Brain - More Evidence of Evolved Psychology
Quote:
I am encouraged that while on the one hand you seem to appreciate the influence of emotion on our conscious reasoning and behavior, it seems that you now also are beginning to grasp that we humans also “CAN†discern reality and truth and also “CAN†choose to behave accordingly . . . and hopefully this will soon lead you to more fully comprehending and acknowledging the reality of human moral responsibility. Oh happy day. |
|
|