ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd October 2019, 08:59 AM   #41
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Are humans born with an inner quality they carry through life? or are they made by the conditioning of experience?

For example can all young men be conditioned to become killers by army training. If so can anyone become a serial killer because of a harsh upbringing?



I would offer an example to say we bring pre existing qualities of the soul to our life, in the fact that many young men refused to fight in the second world war, but became conscientious objectors. Were they doing this because they were brought up religious, or were they simply not willing to kill anyone for any reason because of their latent nature ?
Have you forgotten your beliefs? Remember according to you we decide or sometimes you claim are forced to become what we are "this" life and there are karma Angel's involved. Your beliefs mean neither nature or nurture are responsible for what we are during this incarnation.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 3rd October 2019 at 11:08 AM. Reason: They didn't mean it
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 09:00 AM   #42
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Hi ! as usual you blitz me with questions, and I will consider the further points later. For now I think that many objectors helped in the war effort by doing things like driving ambulances. I figure they just objected to actually having to kill someone, not to helping their country survive.
No he normally asks you one question at a time and you normally try to dodge and dive to avoid answering his question
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 09:01 AM   #43
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I mean do we have an inbuilt 'latent' nature before experience shapes us?





Yes ! there are plenty of people bringing up children with a set of moral values not based on religion. A simple one being, 'do as you would be done by' . I was taught that in infants school. But whether that kind of moral teaching is enough to keep a young man from succumbing to army training to shove a bayonet into someone is another matter. Most men seem to be able to be trained to be soldiers by a well used formula. But there are those that resist, and my point is, do they do that by some inner quality not taught them?

There are clearly people who think God will punish them if they kill an enemy soldier. Or there is the eastern philosophy that actions create karma. But do some people simply resist the dehumanising of army training because they have a deeper conscience that will not succumb to life's conditioning?



I , of course, am debating this from the point of view I believe the soul pre exists and brings its spiritual evolutionary status into the world with it at birth.
Short film was it? Out of curiosity what film was it?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 09:41 AM   #44
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Are humans born with an inner quality they carry through life? or are they made by the conditioning of experience?
For example can all young men be conditioned to become killers by army training. If so can anyone become a serial killer because of a harsh upbringing?
Ultimately, I believe that your questions is:
Is human consciousness chaotic and thus unpredictable,
or could every variable be identified and calculated so that humans become deterministic and thus predictable? I devised an experiment to try and identify what those variables could be.

Human behavior is very complex. When we try to describe human behavior with a model consisting of two mutually exclusive descriptors (dichotomy), I believe that this simplification looses resolution to the point it lacks the necessary amount of utility that would get us any closer to answering your underlying question.

As others have already mentioned here, social and cultural influence has a great power over human behavior. For that reason, I believe that the nature vs nurture model should be replaced with the Bio-psycho-social Model. It incorporates the aforementioned contributing factors. While this new model may still not be nearly complex enough, it at least incorporates variables that we know contribute to human behavior.

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I would offer an example to say we bring pre existing qualities of the soul to our life, in the fact that many young men refused to fight in the second world war, but became conscientious objectors. Were they doing this because they were brought up religious, or were they simply not willing to kill anyone for any reason because of their latent nature ?
I would start your inquiry by questioning the individuals who made that choice. They have valuable insight into the reason for their decisions.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 10:52 AM   #45
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Short film was it? Out of curiosity what film was it?
What film would that be? if you are referring to the TV series I mentioned in post 25 I don't remember the name of it.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 11:13 AM   #46
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
What film would that be? if you are referring to the TV series I mentioned in post 25 I don't remember the name of it.
Whilst I do make mistakes so I could have said TV series instead of film in this case I didn't make a mistake. I asked you about the film you mentioned, indeed as far as I can recall only you have mentioned a film in this thread. My question was about the film you mentioned.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 11:25 AM   #47
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,294
If someone gives you, say, a daffodil bulb there is clearly a great deal you can do to ensure it develops into a healthy plant - plant it in good soil, water it etc. Or you could neglect it, trample on it, and end up with a damaged plant. But there is absolutely nothing you can do to it that would make it grow into a tulip. No matter how much you would have preferred a tulip, if what you've been given is a daffodil bulb you're gonna get a daffodil.

So the answer to "nature or nurture?" is definitely "both".

The nature part comes from genes, though, not from a soul. We know this because children resemble their parents psychologically as well as physically. "He's got his father's temper" is heard as often as "He's got his father's eyes".
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 3rd October 2019 at 11:27 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 11:32 AM   #48
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Whilst I do make mistakes so I could have said TV series instead of film in this case I didn't make a mistake. I asked you about the film you mentioned, indeed as far as I can recall only you have mentioned a film in this thread. My question was about the film you mentioned.
Oh ! post 15 I was watching a film in between posting. It was watching a film called 'deadly skies' on channel 40 last night.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 11:43 AM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,995
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
What film would that be? if you are referring to the TV series I mentioned in post 25 I don't remember the name of it.
He's talking about the film you mentioned in post 15:
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Jay Utah, I am watching a film on TV while having dinner, so there will be a delay in getting back to you.
That said, I think inquiring about the length of the film or its title is off topic (intentional derail?), so I won't hold it against you if you ignore Darat's inquiry and focus on making substantial replies to Jay's excellent and on-topic points of debate.

ETA: Never mind. I see that you've already sprung the trap. Better luck next time, I guess.

Last edited by theprestige; 3rd October 2019 at 11:44 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 12:04 PM   #50
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,255
when in doubt, nature > nurture
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 12:17 PM   #51
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Oh ! post 15 I was watching a film in between posting. It was watching a film called 'deadly skies' on channel 40 last night.
So did you choose to watch that?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 12:19 PM   #52
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So did you choose to watch that?
Yep !
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 01:28 PM   #53
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Yep !
So was that choice nature or nurture?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 01:46 PM   #54
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So was that choice nature or nurture?
Culture
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 01:50 PM   #55
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,353
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
What a fascinating creature.
It's also common for them to be cannibalistic and males have adaptations to help prevent the female from eating them after sex.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 01:59 PM   #56
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Culture
That is not an answer to the question I asked you.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 10:36 PM   #57
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,695
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
As others have already mentioned here, social and cultural influence has a great power over human behavior. For that reason, I believe that the nature vs nurture model should be replaced with the Bio-psycho-social Model. It incorporates the aforementioned contributing factors. While this new model may still not be nearly complex enough, it at least incorporates variables that we know contribute to human behavior.
Could you give an example of this model? Thank you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 10:40 PM   #58
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,695
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The nature part comes from genes, though, not from a soul. We know this because children resemble their parents psychologically as well as physically.
The argument is not valid. This may be due to learning as well. There are many examples where children are different from biological parents.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:55 AM   #59
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,294
Well obviously nurture can influence character and personality as well as genetics, I already implied that. My point was that there is no need to invoke a third factor, as Scorpion wants to do by introducing souls into the discussion. If innate differences were actually down to souls in various stages of development inhabiting newborns, as Scorpion is clearly trying to suggest, then we wouldn't see any psychological resemblance between children and their parents.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:24 AM   #60
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,695
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Well obviously nurture can influence character and personality as well as genetics, I already implied that. My point was that there is no need to invoke a third factor, as Scorpion wants to do by introducing souls into the discussion. If innate differences were actually down to souls in various stages of development inhabiting newborns, as Scorpion is clearly trying to suggest, then we wouldn't see any psychological resemblance between children and their parents.
Oh, sure. But Scorpio's problem is to say how you can measure -- even if only approximately -- what is in a soul. I know methods for detecting brain activity and behavioral activity. I know methods for correlating genetic differences and behavior or biological traits. I don't know anything like that for the soul. I suspect this is because the soul does not exist.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:48 AM   #61
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,090
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Here's a super intelligent animal that is highly adapted to its environment. Its mother died right around the time that it hatched from the egg. It has no peer group and essentially lives its entire life alone until the short reproductive event.

We have found that they can screw the lid off a jar to get at a crab inside. Nobody taught them that and they've never seen it before. I don't know if a human can or would unscrew a jar without having it demonstrated first, or at least being presented with the concept of "unscrew" beforehand.

Is the octopus 100% nature, or what?
I know that octopusses (octopi?) can unscrew jars and are highly intelligent, but are we certain they didn't see a person do it first and learn by observation?

Unlike octopusses, humans cannot survive childhood without a parent or someone acting as a parent. They are completely helpless for a long time after being born whereas octopusses have to be able to fend for themselves from the instant they are born (and likely most of them fail to reach maturity, which is why they need to lay a lot of eggs).
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:52 AM   #62
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,090
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Culture
Culture falls under nurture.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 07:13 AM   #63
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,625
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I know that octopusses (octopi?) can unscrew jars and are highly intelligent, but are we certain they didn't see a person do it first and learn by observation?
They donít live that long, itíd be trivial to raise one without such an experience, so Iím sure itís been done that way. Their skill set includes wrenching shells open so I imagine the twisting motion itself only needs to be experimentally modified (do it more times the same direction) to figure out a jar. From the octopusí point of view itís a fancy shell. But they can figure out a lot more esoteric things too.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 07:31 AM   #64
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,782
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
They don’t live that long, it’d be trivial to raise one without such an experience, so I’m sure it’s been done that way. Their skill set includes wrenching shells open so I imagine the twisting motion itself only needs to be experimentally modified (do it more times the same direction) to figure out a jar. From the octopus’ point of view it’s a fancy shell. But they can figure out a lot more esoteric things too.
I watched documentary on PBS last night about a scientist who invited an octopus to come and live in his home (in a tank) and other fascinating stuff about octopi in general. You can watch it here if you live in the USA (or have a VPN):

https://www.pbs.org/video/octopus-ma...ontact-y8dyan/

One interesting takeaway -- there are some octopi who interact socially with each other.

The jar opening is demonstrated.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

Last edited by Gord_in_Toronto; 4th October 2019 at 07:33 AM. Reason: Added ref to jar opening added
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 07:54 AM   #65
Elaedith
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
From what I gather, the evidence suggest that its about 70% nature 30% nurture with that 30% being split between everything that happens from birth through death.
To take the example in the OP its seems as though almost anyone can kill another human in the right circumstances but only some people can become serial killers in the right circumstances.

Those number are pulled out of my ass but basically its appears our personalities are mostly driven by genetics and epigenetics with some steering by our life experience but not really much.

On the other hand I can not rule out hard deteriminism in which the circumstances now are entirely determined by the laws and initial conditions of the universe so that 30% could really be just as hard wired as the 70% but hardwired into the universe rather than my genetics.
The issue here is what those numbers represent. Heritability estimates are a ratio of the variation in a trait attributed to genetics (versus environment) but are frequently misinterpreted. This ratio is only relevant to a population at a particular point in time and cannot be fixed. Leaving aside epigenetics (another complication) if everyone were genetically identical all variation would be attributed to nurture and if everyone somehow experienced identical environmental conditions from conception onwards then all variation would be attributed to genetic factors. Because environmental equality changes across time and culture, heritability estimates will change over time and population as a result of the proportion of variance due to environment changing. More environmental equality will tend to produce higher heritability estimates.

In addition, most means of calculating heritability have a flawed assumption of independent and additive contributions of genetics and environment, when in practice these are interactive. Take the example of personality traits like introversion and extraversion (thought to have a heritable biological basis) and imagine an introverted and an extraverted child adopted at birth by the same family who provide them with exactly the same environment - say the parents are extraverts and provide an environment that suits extraverts. For the extraverted child this is a beneficial environment because it matches their innate dispositions, whereas for the introverted child the same environment could be inappropriate and produce stress. Therefore, although the environment itself is the same, the effects could be positive or negative depending on match or mismatch with temperament. As people get older they get more chances to select their own environments to match their predispositions. In populations with high equality of opportunity and freedom of choice experiences will match predispositions more than in populations with less freedom. This will also affect genetic-environment correlations with experiences matching genetically-influenced predispositions more closely in more free/equal societies.

A more relevant question in relation to what Scorpion is asking is if everyone were genetically identical, would some people be much more likely than others to engage in certain acts? I don't see how that can be answered from heritability estimates.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 10:33 AM   #66
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Could you give an example of this model? Thank you.
Much like the nature vs nurture concept, a functional model does not exist for BPS.

The N vs N model is presented as two vying independent variables. It is one or the other. That is a false representation of reality. Human behavior and cognition should be viewed as a whole system.

The BPS model eliminates these shortcomings because it is interdisciplinary. It is a better concept and moves us closer to a unified theory. We are not specifically sure how biology, psychology and social aspects intersect, however, combining them in a unified way is a better starting position than N vs N.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Oh, sure. But Scorpio's problem is to say how you can measure -- even if only approximately -- what is in a soul. I know methods for detecting brain activity and behavioral activity. I know methods for correlating genetic differences and behavior or biological traits. I don't know anything like that for the soul. I suspect this is because the soul does not exist.
Scientist have only began to probe 4% of everything that exist in the universe. We do not even fully understand that 4%. That leaves 96% that we haven't even began to comprehend. That is where you might find the soul
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:04 AM   #67
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,353
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
They donít live that long, itíd be trivial to raise one without such an experience, so Iím sure itís been done that way. Their skill set includes wrenching shells open so I imagine the twisting motion itself only needs to be experimentally modified (do it more times the same direction) to figure out a jar. From the octopusí point of view itís a fancy shell. But they can figure out a lot more esoteric things too.
This could be misleading. Octopuses do not generally use brute strength to wrench open something like a living clam shell (bivalve mollusk). They are probably not capable of doing that. The adductor muscle(s) of a bivalve is adapted to prevent this and is too strong to overcome.

Octopuses have venomous saliva. It is primarily an adaptation to overcome the defenses of their hard-shelled prey (think clams and crabs) but also can be a defense. Their mouth is a hard beak almost the same as a parrot. It is used for piercing and some shearing and shredding.

Their strategy to defeat a healthy clam is not to wrench open the shell (they can't) but instead to pierce the shell with their beak and inject the venom. The venom paralyses the nervous system and then the adductor muscle(s) no longer functions. The shell then opens easily. BTW, when you eat scallops you are only eating the huge adductor muscle.

Crabs are defeated by pinning (or grasping) them in a way that avoids the pincer claws and then the beak penetrates the shell to inject venom. The crab becomes paralyzed and the octopus can begin to break it open and apart.

The unscrewing of a jar lid seems to be unlike any behavior that it uses to acquire prey.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:04 AM   #68
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,972
The plural of octopus is octopuses or octopodes, depending on whether you want to be correct or pedantic. The word 'octopus' comes from Greek not Latin, so octopi is incorrect (though widespread).

I don't think nature vs nurture is a sensible way of looking at traits or personality; humans are a combination of both and nothing about us can be pinned down to either only nature or only nurture.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 12:44 AM   #69
ehhz
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Culture falls under nurture.
A distinction should be drawn between civilization and culture. Basic prerequisites for civilization include literature, history, literacy, language, and laws.

Culture is cultivation of works, especially in the arts and music (which were regarded in antiquity as godsent, this ties in with the original etymology of the term "genius"), which have been made to conform to nature, harmonious with life. It is the instinctive contributions from truly great individuals. The motive determines whether it was cultural or not. Thomas Jefferson rightly called out Edmund Burke, whose actions had apparently been revealed to have stemmed from bad motives and whose primitive view of god was reduced to being an enforcer of reward/punishment, such a virtue Schopenhauer would have dismissed as pure egoism.
ehhz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:45 AM   #70
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,945
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
The plural of octopus is octopuses or octopodes, depending on whether you want to be correct or pedantic.
The editor I worked with most closely assured me that once a foreign word has been adopted thoroughly into English, it is perfectly acceptable to pluralize it according to the rules of English. My impression here is that the word came to us from Greek, but through the Latin by which the natural world started to be taxonomized in the 18th century -- and perhaps merely a contrivance here. This is why we have octopus instead of oktopous. In English we have no other common word for the animal -- cf. the buffalo/bison controversy -- So octopus is the common English word. If the pedants insist on plurals from other languages, they should be sure to italicize either octopus or oktopous to assure the reader he means either of the foreign words and not the English word. (Italics are the common typographical convention for foreign words.)

Quote:
I don't think nature vs nurture is a sensible way of looking at traits or personality;
Since Scorpion had a private religious definition for each, the false dilemma doesn't much matter to the argument he wanted to have and which has now been abandoned. He might just as accurately have said, "Incense versus peppermints."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 04:01 AM   #71
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,029
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Culture falls under nurture.
Well I was hoping Scorpion wanted to discuss his question.

The reason I was asking about the film he watched is that we often have these nature v nurture discussions and we invoke broad concepts like justice, criminal behaviour, ethics and the like. But these are huge topics with so many aspects and side branches it becomes an amorphous tangle. Extracting out a single every day thing someone does and asking is that " nature or nurture?" gives us a much simpler question to answer. And I think a better way to tackle the question.

Sadly Scorpion seems to have run away.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:45 PM   #72
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,090
Another thought occurred to me, regarding "Nature vs. Nurture" in general.

Human beings are, after all, a species of animal. Earlier someone suggested that it's about 75% Nature, 25% Nurture. I agree that this sounds roughly correct, but of course Homo Sapiens is an extreme outlier in this regard. We are perhaps unique in regards to how much of our behavior is learned vs. how much is pure instinct. For any other species of animal, save perhaps a handful of domesticated animals and those trained to perform tricks in a circus or something like that, probably upwards of 95% of their behavior is pre-programmed through instincts. So it would be very odd indeed if humans were truly a "blank slate". We must have evolved from animals that are not "blank slates".
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 08:29 PM   #73
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,083
The every early birth of humans probably causes the environment to have a relatively bigger impact on development than in species in which offspring are born more or less functional.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 09:34 PM   #74
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Homo Sapiens is an extreme outlier in this regard. We are perhaps unique in regards to how much of our behavior is learned vs. how much is pure instinct. For any other species of animal, save perhaps a handful of domesticated animals and those trained to perform tricks in a circus or something like that, probably upwards of 95% of their behavior is pre-programmed through instincts. So it would be very odd indeed if humans were truly a "blank slate". We must have evolved from animals that are not "blank slates".

I don' think that's true. Is there any research suggesting we rely more on learnt behaviour than instincts in comparison to animals?

As far as nurture and nature, research suggests about a 50/50 genetics/environmental influence in how a person turns out. Nurture would fall under environment. I don't know quite how nurture is defined, but if it equates to 'upbringing', it makes no perceptible difference at all.
It seems a person needs a certain 'minimum of care' to develop normally and any additional influences have negligible effect. If you were adopted at birth and raised in another household, receiving the 'minimum of care' to develop normally, you would be essentially the exact same person you are now. The 50% environmental influence seems to be quite random and is probably mostly due to effects experienced during development in the womb.
What you learn seems to make very little difference to your personality or who you are as a person.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 6th October 2019 at 09:38 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 11:17 PM   #75
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,090
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
I don' think that's true. Is there any research suggesting we rely more on learnt behaviour than instincts in comparison to animals?
Well I think it's plainly obvious without looking for research to back up the claim. Just look at what you just did. Reading and writing English or another human language is a behavior that we learn. It isn't instinct, and no other species of animal is capable of it. And there's too many other human learned behaviors to list.

Quote:
As far as nurture and nature, research suggests about a 50/50 genetics/environmental influence in how a person turns out. Nurture would fall under environment. I don't know quite how nurture is defined, but if it equates to 'upbringing', it makes no perceptible difference at all.
It seems a person needs a certain 'minimum of care' to develop normally and any additional influences have negligible effect. If you were adopted at birth and raised in another household, receiving the 'minimum of care' to develop normally, you would be essentially the exact same person you are now. The 50% environmental influence seems to be quite random and is probably mostly due to effects experienced during development in the womb.
What you learn seems to make very little difference to your personality or who you are as a person.
I'm not really following you here because you seem to contradict yourself. First you say that "research suggests about a 50/50 genetics/environmental influence in how a person turns out" but then you say that "you would be essentially the exact same person you are now" if raised in a different environment and "What you learn seems to make very little difference to your personality or who you are as a person." That would suggest that it is not 50/50 at all but more like 90/10 or something. I'm not really buying that. I think that personality is more malleable than that. Of course, this is difficult to study even with, say, adopted children, if they are adopted by similar families in a similar culture/society.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:51 AM   #76
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Well I think it's plainly obvious without looking for research to back up the claim. Just look at what you just did. Reading and writing English or another human language is a behavior that we learn. It isn't instinct, and no other species of animal is capable of it. And there's too many other human learned behaviors to list.
Yes, you learn a language, but to be able to learn a language you need a 'knack for languages', an instinct that is based in the genetics that result in structures in your brain specifically evolved to parse language.
Since we use language instinctively and other animals don't, we have evolved additional instincts that animals lack. We have bigger brains and more instincts than other animals.
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm not really following you here because you seem to contradict yourself. First you say that "research suggests about a 50/50 genetics/environmental influence in how a person turns out" but then you say that "you would be essentially the exact same person you are now" if raised in a different environment and "What you learn seems to make very little difference to your personality or who you are as a person." That would suggest that it is not 50/50 at all but more like 90/10 or something. I'm not really buying that. I think that personality is more malleable than that. Of course, this is difficult to study even with, say, adopted children, if they are adopted by similar families in a similar culture/society.
The 50% environmental influence seems to happen mostly before birth, during development in the womb. The environment after birth has little influence.

Edit: Found this
In the Nature–Nurture War, Nature Wins
and
Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 7th October 2019 at 12:58 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 02:46 AM   #77
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,090
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Yes, you learn a language, but to be able to learn a language you need a 'knack for languages', an instinct that is based in the genetics that result in structures in your brain specifically evolved to parse language.
Since we use language instinctively and other animals don't, we have evolved additional instincts that animals lack. We have bigger brains and more instincts than other animals.

The 50% environmental influence seems to happen mostly before birth, during development in the womb. The environment after birth has little influence.

Edit: Found this
In the NatureĖNurture War, Nature Wins
and
Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies
OK. Stuff that happens in the womb before you're born isn't what I was primarily thinking of, but fair enough. Some combination of genetics and epigenetics.

Quote:
These findings call for a radical rethink about parenting, education and the events that shape our lives. It also provides a novel perspective on equal opportunity, social mobility and the structure of society.
I wonder what the author is hinting at.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:27 PM   #78
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Well I was hoping Scorpion wanted to discuss his question.

The reason I was asking about the film he watched is that we often have these nature v nurture discussions and we invoke broad concepts like justice, criminal behaviour, ethics and the like. But these are huge topics with so many aspects and side branches it becomes an amorphous tangle. Extracting out a single every day thing someone does and asking is that " nature or nurture?" gives us a much simpler question to answer. And I think a better way to tackle the question.

Sadly Scorpion seems to have run away.
Sorry ! I did not understand the relevance of the question.

I think the answer why I watched an action film is probably a mixture of both my nature, and my conditioning, or nurture.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 09:50 PM   #79
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
OK. Stuff that happens in the womb before you're born isn't what I was primarily thinking of, but fair enough. Some combination of genetics and epigenetics.
Literally the environment, everything that interacts with the embryo from conception onwards.
Who you are, your personality, is due to how your brain functions and dependent on structures in your brain that grew organically during your development in the womb.
Think of a brain developing, like a tree growing to maturity. If you cloned some trees, say an oak, a pine and a weeping willow, planted the clones out in ideal, identical conditions and let them grow up, you will notice that due to their very different growth habits and resulting structure, even from a distance, a tree will be easily identifiable. All the oaks like lollypops, pines like Christmas trees and willows ... like willows. Same genetics, same growth habits, same eventual shape, like the brains of identical twins. Looking closer though, no two trees look exactly the same, not even remotely, branches don't split in the same places, don't grow in the same directions, even though their genetics are identical. These difference are due to 'the environment' and basically random.
It appears that that is how personalities develop and that the basic structures are already in place by the time you are born.

Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I wonder what the author is hinting at.
That should make an interesting discussion, would you like to start a thread?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 01:10 AM   #80
Jono
Master Poster
 
Jono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,026
I still return at times to this enjoyable and easy going lecture at TED by Pinker regarding his book 'The Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c&t=
__________________
"I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard
Jono is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.