|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 22:36:56 GMT
Our genes are designed for our survival. One of the few innate gene inherited reactions is fear. Humans like all animals are hard wired in their sensory system, not the logical thinking part of the brain, to be wary of danger, which is why different people can have different learnt fear levels to the same perceived danger. LEARNT likes and dislikes along with other experiences come together to produce individual personalities. Genes do not make decisions, but they make decision making possible. That assumes they are learnt. Genes are what pressure you to behave in certain ways. Learning is overcoming those pressures to greater or lesser degrees of success and fear is no exception. Most people are born with a personality learning is what develops it. Viking groups always tried to ensure they had members of berserk families in their fighting groups to take advantage of the gene that made them on occasion lose control and become vicious fighters. That was not learned that was genetics at work. Genes supply the parts that learn that which is safe and that which is not safe. The Amygdala in the emotional area of the brain is referred to as an early warning system. It learns perceived and actual danger. If it were never to experience either, it could never react to a learnt or perceived danger. The brain is not born with a prepared list of dangers it has to learn them. DNA carries the blueprints for all of the separate parts of the individual, and that's it. The separate parts of the body and brain are then left to do their individual jobs. Even if DNA could carry danger warnings, it could not forewarn individuals of a danger that had never existed before. It leaves that to the learning area of the emotional/sensory area of the brain. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2022 11:08:56 GMT
That assumes they are learnt. Genes are what pressure you to behave in certain ways. Learning is overcoming those pressures to greater or lesser degrees of success and fear is no exception. Most people are born with a personality learning is what develops it. Viking groups always tried to ensure they had members of berserk families in their fighting groups to take advantage of the gene that made them on occasion lose control and become vicious fighters. That was not learned that was genetics at work. Genes supply the parts that learn that which is safe and that which is not safe. The Amygdala in the emotional area of the brain is referred to as an early warning system. It learns perceived and actual danger. If it were never to experience either, it could never react to a learnt or perceived danger. The brain is not born with a prepared list of dangers it has to learn them. DNA carries the blueprints for all of the separate parts of the individual, and that's it. The separate parts of the body and brain are then left to do their individual jobs. Even if DNA could carry danger warnings, it could not forewarn individuals of a danger that had never existed before. It leaves that to the learning area of the emotional/sensory area of the brain. I agree in general but that sems to be a way over simplification of complex interactions. One has to learn within the environment what specific dangers are but how you react is mostly inbuilt by your genes. Take the Hawk and Dove observations of any animal group. Decisions on fight and flight are made not consciously but are dependant on many signals and the reaction as programmed by genes to those signals. The end result is always which group survives the best or what balance is arrived at with a mixture of Hawk and Dove as regards a stable group situation. The point is experience is the learning process but gene programming is the survival process. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2022 11:48:35 GMT
The inbuilt biological (genetic) stuff is still powerful for a reason. The conscious mind is a complicated evolutionary experiment that is likely to be a (at best) wip prototype for many more tens of millions of years. It isn't very reliable.
You can illustrate how powerful these deep psychological forces are with a VR set and a candidate who has never tried VR before. Set them up standing on a high ledge in the simulation and ask them to just walk off it. I'm not saying they can't do it - they can, of course, do it. However, it is unlikely that they will do it without hesitancy or loud expressions of doubt and trepidation. Their conscious mind 'knows' perfectly well there is no danger with no possibility whatsoever it is mistaken and yet the final result is a hedge between the emotional impression and logic. People will take the apparatus off to check the floor on front of them, put it back on, then take the step foreword - as if there could possibly be a gigantic hole in the floor in front of them. That's how much nature trusts conscious reasoning, especially when dealing with novelty.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 24, 2022 12:37:20 GMT
The inbuilt biological (genetic) stuff is still powerful for a reason. The conscious mind is a complicated evolutionary experiment that is likely to be a (at best) wip prototype for many more tens of millions of years. It isn't very reliable. You can illustrate how powerful these deep psychological forces are with a VR set and a candidate who has never tried VR before. Set them up standing on a high ledge in the simulation and ask them to just walk off it. I'm not saying they can't do it - they can, of course, do it. However, it is unlikely that they will do it without hesitancy or loud expressions of doubt and trepidation. Their conscious mind 'knows' perfectly well there is no danger with no possibility whatsoever it is mistaken and yet the final result is a hedge between the emotional impression and logic. People will take the apparatus off to check the floor on front of them, put it back on, then take the step foreword - as if there could possibly be a gigantic hole in the floor in front of them. That's how much nature trusts conscious reasoning. Your example exposes the proof that the sensory learning part of the brain does not apply logic and cannot rationalise, it learns remembers and reacts. The reactions taken are to change the hormonal mix to suit the situation. In an audience watching a weepy film many people will be wiping away a tear, with many others having to deal with strong emotional feelings. Everyone knows that they are watching shadows on a screen where actors have been paid to play their part. The non-logical sensory system reacts as if what it sees on the screen is actually real. (All incoming sensory information goes to the sensory system first, except for sight and sound which enters both systems at the same time.) When individuals are concentrating on something and there is a sudden loud bang behind them there is an immediate jump that takes place accompanied by an increase in heartbeat. A tightening in the chest caused by the sensory system pumping adrenalin into the body. This reaction has already taken place before the thinking brain asks, 'what was that'. The sensory system plays a major part in survival. Incidentally sensory learning begins during the last 3 months in the womb. The thinking brain doesn't begin to function until around the age of two. Therefore, the thinking brain wakes up to a world that is already influenced by sensory learnt reactions. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 24, 2022 12:59:33 GMT
Genes supply the parts that learn that which is safe and that which is not safe. The Amygdala in the emotional area of the brain is referred to as an early warning system. It learns perceived and actual danger. If it were never to experience either, it could never react to a learnt or perceived danger. The brain is not born with a prepared list of dangers it has to learn them. DNA carries the blueprints for all of the separate parts of the individual, and that's it. The separate parts of the body and brain are then left to do their individual jobs. Even if DNA could carry danger warnings, it could not forewarn individuals of a danger that had never existed before. It leaves that to the learning area of the emotional/sensory area of the brain. I agree in general but that sems to be a way over simplification of complex interactions. One has to learn within the environment what specific dangers are but how you react is mostly inbuilt by your genes. Take the Hawk and Dove observations of any animal group. Decisions on fight and flight are made not consciously but are dependant on many signals and the reaction as programmed by genes to those signals. The end result is always which group survives the best or what balance is arrived at with a mixture of Hawk and Dove as regards a stable group situation. The point is experience is the learning process but gene programming is the survival process. There is a well known saying that "it is all in the Genes" this is pure speculation on the unknown. Humans dislike not having answers to the unknown. There is no known Gene programming, if you know of one that is tested and proven then please post it. There is only the ability to learn and to react to different situations. Genes implant certain innate actions such as breathing, masticating, yawning (when the brain is not getting enough oxygen), heartbeat, and being wary of potential danger. |
|
mfel
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by mfel on Nov 24, 2022 15:29:36 GMT
It's essentially a buzz word used by right wing extremists to denounce everything they don't like.
|
|
mfel
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by mfel on Nov 24, 2022 15:31:20 GMT
Point is: right wing conservatives and ultra-orthodox muslims are not far apart. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2022 15:31:33 GMT
I agree in general but that sems to be a way over simplification of complex interactions. One has to learn within the environment what specific dangers are but how you react is mostly inbuilt by your genes. Take the Hawk and Dove observations of any animal group. Decisions on fight and flight are made not consciously but are dependant on many signals and the reaction as programmed by genes to those signals. The end result is always which group survives the best or what balance is arrived at with a mixture of Hawk and Dove as regards a stable group situation. The point is experience is the learning process but gene programming is the survival process. There is a well known saying that "it is all in the Genes" this is pure speculation on the unknown. Humans dislike not having answers to the unknown. There is no known Gene programming, if you know of one that is tested and proven then please post it. There is only the ability to learn and to react to different situations. Genes implant certain innate actions such as breathing, masticating, yawning (when the brain is not getting enough oxygen), heartbeat, and being wary of potential danger. Genes give you everything to enable you to survive in the world and, most importantly, pass those genes on to the next generation the more the merrier. You then have to learn what the genes have given you to survive. One possible programme is the ability to help those of genes close to you and to judge how close any particular person is to you without doing a complicated calculation. Bird migration is believed to be instinct (in the main) and as such is programming by genes. Many actions and reactions are programmed into all of us. Learning how to use them to the best advantage is part of the programming as well. We are programmed to survive and procreate, we can boast that we think independently of our genes and in many senses that is true but our personalities in the first instance are governed by the genes and nurture sculpts the character that arises not from a blank base human but from a human preprogrammed with many natural instincts some good, some bad for others, but always one that is ready and able to survive by using those programmes and applying what it has learned. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 24, 2022 15:47:07 GMT
It's essentially a buzz word used by right wing extremists to denounce everything they don't like.
In the same way that "right wing extremists" is used by left wing extremists to denounce everything that they don't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 24, 2022 15:49:23 GMT
Point is: right wing conservatives and ultra-orthodox muslims are not far apart. Yet wokers decry one while venerating the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2022 16:06:22 GMT
Point is: right wing conservatives and ultra-orthodox muslims are not far apart. Oh the irony.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2022 16:28:41 GMT
Point is: right wing conservatives and ultra-orthodox muslims are not far apart. I think you have got the joke a bit tangled. The humor here is the contradiction between frame 2 and frame 4, and the way she shifts focus and blame to herself on receiving what should be an irrelevant piece of information. It's an illustration of an inconsistent belief system. I'm not even sure this is even technically a caricature. It's an artificial illustration, but the transaction it describes does actually happen and is defended. It is not an exaggeration. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 24, 2022 16:41:27 GMT
I get the gist of it, for example Lenny Henry can say things like 'black people don't want the big white saviour coming to our rescue', even though he'll take the big white saviour's money. Lenny the Hero, not a racist comment but a true accurate one, nothing racist about it.
Lawrence Fox says 'I am offended and think it's racist calling me white privileged'.
Lawrence Fox you racist you must never work again you racist.
There is Woke for you. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2022 16:55:45 GMT
Almost all dictionaries describe "Woke" as "alert to injustice and discrimination within society, particularly racism" <---- Or words to this effect. This definition is non objective / circular. By this I mean that it is describing a political stance using terms (such as justice) whose interpretations themselves depend on a political stance. For instance - consider this 'definition' of conservatism - Conservatism - Those concerned to see justice and goodness protected and badness exposed. Can you see a problem? Is the above a definition of anything in particular? The right wing populists obviously attach their own alternative / made-up meaning to the word, The 'right wing populist' meaning for the word is the one in most common usage - even some commentators on the left now occasionally employ this word to describe those who remained on-board the crazy train past a few too many stops. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 25, 2022 0:54:05 GMT
No, what is 'non objective' is being in denial of what the recognised dictionaries say. Mostly it's just trying to invent an alternative reality in order to demonise those who actually care about the lives of those they don't personally know.
|
|
