The more I read about biology and humans, the more it becomes clear the magnitude of the role genes, epigenetics, the nervous system and even the gut play in behaviour. This meaning that we do have agency, but not at all fully free agency.
Second, with the discovery of cognitive bias and the role of (epi)genetics in personality and behaviour, it seems unlikely that we as humans can be freed by knowledge or be freed from our nature.
Biology does show the brain is plastic, but what all of it shows is that there is a limit to what you can change.
So why do many people downplay the role of external control and think that humans can become progressively better? Pic very related.
>external control Make that external factors: makes the point better.
Mason Walker
A mix of technology, bias, and optimism.
Kayden Walker
Maybe it is a bias itself, but is it a cultural bias or also innate bias? John Gray would argue it is a cultural bias leftover from Christianity. Is he in the right here?
What did you mean with technology?
Colton Fisher
>What did you mean with technology? We're fast approaching the age of designer babies. We're also inching towards being able to interface computers with our minds. Meliorism becomes infinitely more sensible in the context of transhumanism, because it has the potenital of overcoming the biological and cultural biases you mentioned in OP.
>Maybe it is a bias itself, but is it a cultural bias or also innate bias? Speculation, but I would argue both. Our existence is predicated by evolution on the superiority of our genes. Our culture is predicated on the superiority of our culture, and so on along this line of reasoning. Perhaps John Gray makes an argument to support this, but meliorism isn't exclusively a christian phenomena.
Adrian Walker
...
Alexander Flores
Sci can't into philosophy though.
Jonathan Garcia
>biological and cultural biases biological and cognitive biases*
Luke Rogers
I am thinking of posting the exact same on Veeky Forums.
Should probably replace the picture of John Gray with a thinking gorilla however.
Brayden Gray
Okay, so our ability to use reason is not a simple direct route to the truth is what you realized?
See this is why we have special snowflakes and /pol/; the will is dead and eugenics are back. I bet people's primal nature is how they invent things, survive genocides and plagues, and achieve high mental and physical fitness right champ?
Elijah Phillips
I can't
Anthony Stewart
Because human consciousness is qualitatively different and cannot be reduced to physicalist explanations.
Lucas Ross
>See this is why we have special snowflakes and /pol/; the will is dead and eugenics are back. I bet people's primal nature is how they invent things, survive genocides and plagues, and achieve high mental and physical fitness right champ? I am really confused what you mean by this. I am not at all implying that: 1) Because there are limits to humans 2) the will is dead and eugenics is back Your post is full of assumptions, very nasty ones if I am honest. All I am saying is that there are limits to human agency, that doesn't mean there is no agency at all.
I am against people downplaying external factors. But would be against people downplaying internal factors as well, maybe my post made it seem like I did that, but that doesn't justify you making false assumptions about me. I tried to make it clear that our brain for example is plastic, which means it can change. But it can only change within limits!
And of course not everything is nature. There is consensus that the influence of nurture and nature are about even. I am not denying this! I am saying that there's a culture that overestimates the nurture, while - yes - users of /pol/ might be genetic determinists (which I am NOT). By the way, /pol/ does downplay other factors that are biological. >Okay, so our ability to use reason is not a simple direct route to the truth is what you realized? We can come to such conclusions thanks to the scientific method. But take cognitive biases, simply knowing about them does not make you any less susceptible to them.
It is also domain specific. Research does suggest that people can become more rational or logical (again within limits, and one research suggests that people with autism think more logical, but that aside). But just because you are more rational in one domain (mathematics), doesn't mean you will be more rational in another (say in social situations). >Because human consciousness is qualitatively different and cannot be reduced to physicalist explanations. That human consciousness is qualitatively different is a fallacy. You are right to point out that you cannot reduce it to physicalist explanations alone. As far as I am concerned consciousness and behaviour in general is an emergent property which means the whole cannot be reduced to its parts.
Hudson Nelson
This is a good thing. Veeky Forums fag here and while I'll respect and acknowledge that I know fuck all of philosophy it needs to stay off Veeky Forums. Respectfully, it's the most fucking annoying thing when half of a le quantum physics xd thread is "yeah but define reality first lmao"
Ayden King
yes it can nimrod.
Chase Johnson
with all due respect, people on Veeky Forums barely know anything about quantum mechanics let alone philosophy. You're all just virtue signalling.
Robert Harris
youve misused the word physicalism imo.
Elijah Ortiz
I would like to continue this discussion, but have other things to do. And it seems rather hard to explain myself in a short time and without getting misinterpret.
What I am arguing against are the notions that one can improve certain things by just reading about it, even thinking about it real hard or being educated about it. That doesn't mean those things cannot work, but again there's a limit to it that isn't acknowledged, especially in folk psychology, popular culture and so on.
And I would say that just because humans have certain flaws doesn't have to end in misery, I do think that a social system can manage them, just not change (emphasis) them.
The intensity of certain 'natural' behaviours seems to be not static. And not everything seems to be always expressed, or as I said the intensity of that expression isn't always the same.
Just because humans have the capability for violence, doesn't mean it is expressed or that violent behaviour is inevitable. Just because we have selfish tendencies (implying we have), doesn't mean we can't cooperate.
Clearly humans are behaviourly flexible enough to have different behaviours as output, but that output is determined by our nature, so it is still limited.
We can move freely within those predisposed factors, but you cannot move outside it. In other words improving upon it is not possible, you have to choose from what is already there.
There's more to it but can't put it into words in such a short time. I would have to turn it into a kind of essay and check it numerous times to see if I am being clear.
Benjamin Bennett
>youve misused the word physicalism imo. I thought of it in biological terms not philosphical terms. Anyway I'm tired of this so I'm going to stop.
Jeremiah Price
yes, i think in biological terms as well. and consciousness is ultimately a biological product.
Jayden Gutierrez
one issue in all of this is that we usually dont know "what we all have". sometimes people think they do, but theres no way of knowing.
>one issue in all of this is that we usually dont know "what we all have". sometimes people think they do, but theres no way of knowing. That's vague, so I am not sure how to reply to you. What I can say is that I could fully understand that the common people (not in a demeaning way) will always remain largely unknown of what I am presenting here. Which is sort of my point.
But the intellectual class should at least be more informed about such things. Yet it does not seem to be the case that 1) most of them are aware of it 2) they know the implications of it (which I also do not know and which is one of the things I wanted to discuss) I feel the intellectual class is stuck within their own world, with their own theories and so on, because I see it in conflict with what I've been reading.
Anyway I would say that the society which we, first world, are in, is functional even when it might not be based on those implications. On the other hand it is clear to me that - at the moment - it cannot solve all problems, such as environmental issues. There still exist societal failure.
And I have a suspicion that our societies are still prone to malfunction, when there seems to be this false idea that the people or culture have improved in such a way that malfunction is not possible. I would say the only reason that society is not malfunctioning is due to systematic reasons.
I do think it is possible that at least culture can improve. We no longer do human sacrifice for example. Or, homosexuals have become more accepted. However and this must be repetitive but I would say again and again that there's limits to the improvement of culture (which is also subjective of course). Thank you. Though also sort of proving my point. I am left-leaning and get alienated from leftist discourse as that seems so heavily grounded in its own theories.
I am not like Dawkins that I have a serious aversion towards philosophy, but I do expect some overlap between the sciences and philosophy. You could philosophise about science as well, because science itself has also limits.
Anyway, kind of disappointing that this topic became like a blog. I hoped some interaction between posters, but all the interaction there is between me and other posters.
Landon Flores
I'm not sure how political divisions are relevant here.
