Debate: Is Human Nature Inherently Good Or Evil? page 3 (locked)

91 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

There is no such thing as ‘human nature’, all behavior is learned.

*leans back far*
I’d like to see you prove that.

What did you know how to do at birth?

Define “know,” because it’s kinda hard to learn how to breath. Well, that and kids learn to walk on their own, and learn how to mimic, and they seem to go through stages of congnitive development without much outside influence.

I could go on, actually.

EDIT: Oh and there’s crying, you know how to cry really well at birth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jim_vierling:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

There is no such thing as ‘human nature’, all behavior is learned.

*leans back far*
I’d like to see you prove that.

What did you know how to do at birth?

Define “know,” because it’s kinda hard to learn how to breath. Well, that and kids learn to walk on their own, and learn how to mimic, and they seem to go through stages of congnitive development without much outside influence.

I could go on, actually.

EDIT: Oh and there’s crying, you know how to cry really well at birth.

Breathing is not a behavior. Breathing is a body function. You can learn to hold your breath, but after you pass out your body will automatically resume the process. Learning does not require outside influences, but even without those influences it is learned behavior.

When you say crying are you referring to the tear part or the noise part? The tear part that happens when the eyes are irritated would be another example of a body function and happens whether or not you want it to. The noise part in a newborn is most likely an expression of pain and could just be called screaming. Air traveling across vocal chords produces sound and without any learning of how to control it is just another body function. After the first accidental scream, the behavior is learned.

 
Flag Post

Many reflexes are innate behaviour (the palmar grasp reflex would be a classic example). Processes that are controlled by the vegetative system (like breathing) are innate behaviour too.

You can’t just come up with new custom definitions to make your point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Many reflexes are innate behaviour (the palmar grasp reflex would be a classic example). Processes that are controlled by the vegetative system (like breathing) are innate behaviour too.

You can’t just come up with new custom definitions to make your point.

Definition of BEHAVIOR
1
a : the manner of conducting oneself
b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2
: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
3
: the way in which something functions or operates

How did the body learn those particular behaviors? If you use definition 1.c. then evolution would be an example of behavior.

I would be using definition 2. That one would seem to go better with the title of the thread.

With definition 3, any action at all of any kind, or even no action at all would qualify as behavior.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:
Learning does not require outside influences, but even without those influences it is learned behavior.

Well, unless you have something much more reliable than this, this, and this site, and the books I have read on the subject and/or can give logical proof to how they’re all bullshit, I’m going to keep thinking what they’re saying.

When you say crying are you referring to the tear part or the noise part?

Both.

The noise part in a newborn is most likely an expression of pain and could just be called screaming.

Except that we know that it’s because it’s the baby’s way of saying “hey shithead, take care of me,” which would include when it’s hungry, lonely, scared, bored, or discomforted (again, here).

After the first accidental scream, the behavior is learned.

Because a baby crying when it’s first born is accidental?

Originally posted by jim_vierling:

Definition of BEHAVIOR
1
a : the manner of conducting oneself
b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2
: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
3
: the way in which something functions or operates

I’m going to assume you’re using not sing the same dictionary that I am.

How did the body learn those particular behaviors?

You’re still assuming that you have to learn them.

If you use definition 1.c. then evolution would be an example of behavior.

… How?

I would be using definition 2. That one would seem to go better with the title of the thread.

With definition 3, any action at all of any kind, or even no action at all would qualify as behavior.

Except that you’re missing a huge difference, you not using any of the different types of behaviors (which do exist, by the way), you’re just clumping them all into one and using a few definitions for a very broad term.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

I would be using definition 2. That one would seem to go better with the title of the thread.

Definition two… Behaviour is the way in which someone behaves…

Do you need an explanation for why this definition is not particularly useful here?

How did the body learn those particular behaviors? If you use definition

Alright, this is gonna blow your mind, so hold on tight:
Innate behaviour is not learned.
Learned behaviour is learned.

It might seem simple at first… It… Well, also seems pretty simple when I look at it a second time, so still really don’t see how you can say that all behaviour is learned without inventing new definitions in order for your argument to make sense.

 
Flag Post

Since everyone is born a sinner… by such basis, all is inherently evil…all else are corrective actions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by KoD2:

Since everyone is born a sinner… by such basis, all is inherently evil…all else are corrective actions.

I am not born a sinner.
What now?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by KoD2:

Since everyone is born a sinner… by such basis, all is inherently evil…all else are corrective actions.

I am not born a sinner.
What now?

If you ate meat, you’ve already sinned :P

 
Flag Post

This is a reply to tenco1’s reply. I am not going to use the breaking up of the post to reply stuff because I despise it.

tenco1 wrote: “Well, unless you have something much more reliable than this, this, and this site, and the books I have read on the subject and/or can give logical proof to how they’re all bullshit, I’m going to keep thinking what they’re saying.”

I used incorrect terminology. I should have wrote that learning does not require interactions with other people as outside influences.

tenco1 wrote: “Except that we know that it’s because it’s the baby’s way of saying “hey shithead, take care of me,” which would include when it’s hungry, lonely, scared, bored, or discomforted (again, here).”

The noise was learned the first time that it happened. Or if you prefer the ability to make the noise was learned the first time that it happened. The baby does not know that it can make noise until it does so. The baby after learning that it can make the noise then uses it, even if there is no apparent reason for doing so.

The only way that a baby makes noise to display a certain situation is by associating the response of others to that noise and learning that the noise will get a response. If unattended after birth, the baby will most likely make noise or noises due to discomfort i.e. starvation. It did however, have to realize that it could make noise to begin with.

tenco1 wrote: “Because a baby crying when it’s first born is accidental?”

Yes it is. The baby is not born with the knowledge that it can or can not make noise.

I used the definitions from The Miriam Webster Dictionary.

Definition 1.c. Survival of the fittest means survival of the most adaptable to their environments and its changes. The traits passed on by said survivors can produce an evolution of a species. That evolution would be in response to the environment.

From the site that you pointed to for definitions of the word behavior: the behavior of tin under heat. How does that definition or example of a definition in any way shape or form apply to the topic of this thread which deals with so-called human nature?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

I would be using definition 2. That one would seem to go better with the title of the thread.

Definition two… Behaviour is the way in which someone behaves…

Do you need an explanation for why this definition is not particularly useful here?

How did the body learn those particular behaviors? If you use definition

Alright, this is gonna blow your mind, so hold on tight:
Innate behaviour is not learned.
Learned behaviour is learned.

It might seem simple at first… It… Well, also seems pretty simple when I look at it a second time, so still really don’t see how you can say that all behaviour is learned without inventing new definitions in order for your argument to make sense.

The topic of the thread deals with so-called human nature. That deals with the behaviors of humans.

How would what you call innate behavior have anything to do with human nature as it is described?

What you are is not learned, who you are is learned.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

The topic of the thread deals with so-called human nature. That deals with the behaviors of humans.

No shit, Sherlock. You’re the one who used a broad term in an even broader way, we were just saying someone was wrong on the Internet.

It’s important, btw.

How would what you call innate behavior have anything to do with human nature as it is described?

You very clearly said “all behavior,” and because you said “all behavior,” that means that innate and learned behavior is included into that one word.

What you are is not learned, who you are is learned.

Then not all behavior is learned.

Originally posted by jim_vierling:

This is a reply to tenco1’s reply. I am not going to use the breaking up of the post to reply stuff because I despise it.

And now I am going to abuse the hell out of it.

Fun!

The noise was learned the first time that it happened.

Am I the only one here who thinks that the baby within the first day isn’t nearly mentally developed enough to learn anything?

… The baby after learning that it can make the noise then uses it, even if there is no apparent reason for doing so…

Did I not just list a bunch of reasons detailing exactly why babies cry?

Or if you prefer the ability to make the noise was learned the first time that it happened. The baby does not know that it can make noise until it does so…

The only way that a baby makes noise to display a certain situation is by associating the response of others to that noise and learning that the noise will get a response. If unattended after birth, the baby will most likely make noise or noises due to discomfort i.e. starvation. It did however, have to realize that it could make noise to begin with.

And now I can’t be called a hypocrite for asking this: Sources. Seriously, where are you getting this information? it seems pretty out of line with mainstream science.

Speaking of science, where’s Vika, or am I just the Biology guy?

Definition 1.c. Survival of the fittest means survival of the most adaptable to their environments and its changes. The traits passed on by said survivors can produce an evolution of a species. That evolution would be in response to the environment.

In a very loose sense, I guess. Only one flaw; evolution is a concept, not a thing, and as it turns out concepts have a hard time behaving.

From the site that you pointed to for definitions of the word behavior: the behavior of tin under heat. How does that definition or example of a definition in any way shape or form apply to the topic of this thread which deals with so-called human nature?

That’s exactly my point, you can’t use a few definition for the term “behavior” and act like it can fit every situation perfectly, it’s why there are classifications and types of terms in science, to make a more clear and singular definition.

 
Flag Post

Just to be pedantic:

Originally posted by tenco1:

Am I the only one here who thinks that the baby within the first day isn’t nearly mentally developed enough to learn anything?

I would kinda hope so, yeah.

A newborn is fairly mentally developed. The basic pathways are in place. There’s no mind in there yet, pathways for that won’t form for a goodly while. But everything its doing is learning. All seven primary senses are streaming into its brain and its trying to make sense of everything around it.

The ‘noise’ isn’t learned though, that’s pure bullshit on jim’s part. The baby cries instinctively as that crying is necessary to open up the lungs, push the last of the placental fluid out of them, and start them working for the first time. Same as when you’re jumpstarting a motor, you give it everything you’ve got on the first push.

But yea, the baby’s not even aware it was crying. There’s far too much sensory overload going through the young brain at that point, for it to even be aware of what it’s doing.

That’s why babies are running on pure instinct (I suspect you already know all this Tenco, but Jim doesn’t), preprogrammed instructions to respond to the environment and its own bodily needs, until such time as the mind is developed enough to take charge.

Speaking of science, where’s Vika, or am I just the Biology guy?

Yes, you’re the biology guy, but I pushed myself too hard the last few weeks. At least that’s what I’ve been told over and over (and over) the last few days. Stopping for a rest on Saturday was a bad idea, as everything rushed up like a train wreck. I was briefly coherent in the early hours of yesterday morning, but that was about it :)

Umming and Arring about taking next week off. I’m off tomorrow, and my next appointment isn’t till Thursday after that, so we shall see how we go :)

You’re doing a great job though, and you can bet I will remember your expertise for future conversations :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Just to be pedantic:

All seven primary senses are streaming into its brain and its trying to make sense of everything around it.

Goddamn it science, stop adding things on to my childhood memories.

The ‘noise’ isn’t learned though, that’s pure bullshit on jim’s part.

Yay, I’m not wrong about stuff.

That’s why babies are running on pure instinct (I suspect you already know all this Tenco,

Studying Biology and psycoilogy (seriously, there’s a strange amount of Biology in psychology) does seem to do that, yes.

Yes, you’re the biology guy,…

You’re doing a great job though, and you can bet I will remember your expertise for future conversations :)

Yay, ego stroking!

And also learning that providing sources to support your argument help a lot

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Just to be pedantic:

All seven primary senses are streaming into its brain and its trying to make sense of everything around it.

Back when I was in highschool,they always taught it was five. Balance was quietly swept under the table for who knows what reason, and proprioception? Nobody even knew it existed at the time.

Mind you they never taught that touch was really 20-odd different senses all jammed together under one label either, so there was a lot missing in the simple understanding of the world.


Yes, you’re the biology guy,…

You’re doing a great job though, and you can bet I will remember your expertise for future conversations :)

Yay, ego stroking!

I was thinking more along the lines of impending dhooom as you realise I may start calling on you to flesh out some of my argument points so I don’t have to…

And also learning that providing sources to support your argument help a lot

Yup, at least with the more difficult to swallow points. Over time you find the number you need to provide drops off quite a bit, as others around you either start to ignore everything you say, or find your words are going to agree with whatever reputable source they find anyway…

 
Flag Post

vikaTae wrote: "The ‘noise’ isn’t learned though, that’s pure bullshit on jim’s part. The baby cries instinctively as that crying is necessary to open up the lungs, push the last of the placental fluid out of them, and start them working for the first time. Same as when you’re jumpstarting a motor, you give it everything you’ve got on the first push.

But yea, the baby’s not even aware it was crying. There’s far too much sensory overload going through the young brain at that point, for it to even be aware of what it’s doing.

That’s why babies are running on pure instinct (I suspect you already know all this Tenco, but Jim doesn’t), preprogrammed instructions to respond to the environment and its own bodily needs, until such time as the mind is developed enough to take charge."

The baby may not be aware that the noise it made was called crying, but it most certainly would be aware that the noise was present. If it can hear anyways. Crying is not required to get any remnants out of the lungs, breathing will do that. That is why doctors used to slap the newborn on the ass, to induce an inhale. Now they tend to use suction to start the process and again it does not require any crying from the infant.

The instinct stuff is a load of garbage. A human baby has no idea what to do and everything outside of body functions, i.e. heartbeat, is part of the learning process. What you are calling instinct would mean that the baby was already programmed with instructions.

Sensory overload at birth may induce crying, but the baby has no idea that it can cry until it does. That makes it part of the learning process. The baby has no idea that the pain in its stomach means that it needs to eat, but after eating and the pain subsiding it can associate that action and result.

Human babies are born a blank slate, they have no knowledge what-so-ever. That means that everything they experience is going to be a part of the learning process in some way.

 
Flag Post

I am copying and pasting from a WordPad doc, so I am not sure how it will look when posted as some forums do not support the doc format very well. This is part of an article I wrote around 6 to 8 years ago. The end of this part starts to go into debunking telepathy.

I’ll start with a description of evoked potentials. The
overall electrical activity of the brain, or within specific areas of
the brain, produces electromagnetic frequency/frequencies. However,
each electrical impulse also causes a modulation of the frequency or
frequencies, these are called evoked potentials. This actually applies
to all potential pattern classifications. A search under the image
search of most search engines should produce several sites with images
of the evoked potential patterns.

Heartbeat and breathing are not a part of the

sub-conscious, rather they are a part of the development of the
organism. They are a naturally occurring reaction. Hard-wired into the
development if you prefer. Neither will nor can occur without the
electrical impulses from the brain, unless there is an external
technology providing the impulses or forcing the respiration. Both will
continue after the rest of the brain ceases to function until such time
as there are no more chemicals introduced to supply the reactions that
cause the impulses.

That written, the “sub-conscious” is nothing more than
something that has been learned by someone, (or in some cases
programmed into someone), that they don’t have to think about
(consciously try) to accomplish. As the brain and nervous systems
develop (read about DNA, which is nothing more than a chain of
elements, on your own), which said development
being chemical interactions between elements and what supplies the
electrical impulses to the nervous system as a sort of kick start. This
is also when the development of a defense mechanism against
interference waveforms starts, if it didn’t then the fetus would be
nothing more than a part of the same organism as the mother.

The
mother’s womb is basically a life support system or extra-venous
feeding tube supplying elements for the chemical interactions to occur.
The ‘kicking’ or movement of the fetus inside the womb is the fetus’s
nervous system developing and an electrical impulse or impulses
reaching the muscles causing a reaction and can also be a response to
an external stimulus (or sensory input) reaching the fetus.

At birth a
child’s brain starts receiving and processing other sensory input in
response to external stimuli. Crawling and walking are things that are
learned , usually aided by visual stimuli of seeing someone or
something else moving and trying to mimic them or it, but once learned
and repeated don’t have to be thought out to be accomplished. Talking
would be an example of both sub-conscious and conscious processes. Once
someone learns how to pronounce or say the words then they don’t have
to consciously think about doing so, however someone can consciously
think about what words to use or if that someone chooses to respond
with words or not. A child can learn to mimic words before it learns
either their definitions or their spelling.

This happens due to the
child’s brain comparing (or correlating) the auditory evoked potentials
that occur from it hearing itself to the auditory evoked potentials
that occur from hearing what the child is trying to mimic or imitate.
(This is also how an impressionist would learn to imitate others).
Speech after all is voiced thought. Also a child may learn the meaning,
to a certain extent, of some simplistic words before learning to spell
or read through what is known as conditioned response. In other words,
if said child makes a certain sound then a certain effect may happen.

For example, the child yells “ma” or “mom” and someone responds then
the child will associate one with the other. So if its mother responds
then the child associates the two, but by the same effect if said child
yelled “ma” or “mom” and the father responds this would then be what
the child will associate with said noise until taught the definitions
of the words. By associate I mean this is the set of evoked potentials
through sensory input (whether an auditory, visual or other response
was made) that the child’s brain will correlate with the evoked
potentials from the sound that it made. If the child could actually
think the words to make this association, then said child would also be
able to say the words and would also know what the words meant.

Emotions come from how someone perceives an external
stimulus, or how they have been programmed to perceive said stimulus. A
simple “No” may cause a child, or in some cases an adult, to become
angry or sad when in fact it may have been very beneficial, i.e.
reaching for something on the stove, grabbing for a sharp object, etc.
This is also from the conditioned response thing where the child’s
brain has already associated reaching for something with getting it
especially in a child where the definitions of various objects or what
they do has not yet been learned.

Fear would be an emotion that can be

caused by an absence of external stimuli, however this only happens
when external stimuli have been present before. Once someone has
learned how to think to themselves or how to visualize something in
their brain, which also happens due to the association of evoked
potentials that occur in someone’s brain to various external stimuli,
then this can sometimes also be a way for a person to change their
emotions. This however is also causing an emotion in response to a
stimulus.

Again, neither thoughts nor emotions transfer by any kind of
brain projection. A couple of examples: Someone you enjoy seeing or
talking to arrives where you are or phones you. This stimulus in turn
evokes potentials in your brain which your brain associates with
pleasant emotions. At which point you become happy or glad, however
this person is in a bad mood or as some call it a ‘negative’
emotional state. You are happy, they are not. This person then tells
you why they are not happy which in turn changes your emotional state
in response to the evoked potentials from the external stimulus (the
other person’s story).

The emotional change occurring due to the
association of your brain with the evoked potentials from the story or
due to the evoked potentials from the stimulus of seeing someone that
is usually associated with good emotions not in a good mood. This would
also apply if say someone that you don’t like enters wherever you are.
You were in a good mood, but in response to said stimulus (the person
entering) and the processes mentioned above an emotional change occurs.
Even if the person you don’t like is in a very good mood. This would
also be why a scenario like the one just mentioned can cause a brief
emotional response to just the person entering while not changing
someone’s entire mood.

 
Flag Post

Using dictionary.com:

human nature
noun
1.
the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.
2.
Sociology . the character of human conduct, generally regarded as produced by living in primary groups.

By these definitions, the whole concept of “human nature” deals with learned behavior.

I mistook the concept to be the nature vs. nurture argument. Nature = what, nurture = who.

From Miriam Webster dictionary:

Definition of HUMAN NATURE
: the nature of humans; especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans

 
Flag Post

@ tenco1

When a word has more than one definition, the context that the word was used in should be applied.

All behaviors associated with so-called human nature are learned, would have been the correct interpretation of my original statement. You already knew that, you just decided to get into semantics to get your kicks. You basically confirm that with your reply in the following:

Originally posted by jim_vierling: This is a reply to tenco1’s reply. I am not going to use the breaking up of the post to reply stuff because I despise it.

And now I am going to abuse the hell out of it.

Fun!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

I’ll start with a description of evoked potentials. The
overall electrical activity of the brain, or within specific areas of
the brain, produces electromagnetic frequency/frequencies. However,
each electrical impulse also causes a modulation of the frequency or
frequencies, these are called evoked potentials. This actually applies
to all potential pattern classifications. A search under the image
search of most search engines should produce several sites with images
of the evoked potential patterns.



I'm glad it will. Its a pity I actually know what these are, and that they don't support your argument in any way, isn't it?

You're measuring the brain's response to incoming data. The minute electrical signal produced when something changes, and the brain deals with that. ERP are a subclass of that, that aren't measured any differently.

The problem your entire line of reasoning has, is it fails to realise that since both a learned response and an instinctual response come from the brain, both are going to produce a signal. Thus both learned and innate responses are going to register the same way. The difference is going to come in where in the brain they originate from. Learned responses are typically going to come from the cerebral cortex and the midbrain, whilst innate responses are going to come from the hindbrain, or those parts of the midbrain directly connected to the medula.

Unless you are paying attention to where in the brain these signals are coming from - ideally with a 3D EEG, ECoG or fMRI basis; that these signals are actually produced, tells you squatt.

Heartbeat and breathing are not a part of the
sub-conscious, rather they are a part of the development of the
organism. They are a naturally occurring reaction. Hard-wired into the
development if you prefer. Neither will nor can occur without the
electrical impulses from the brain, unless there is an external
technology providing the impulses or forcing the respiration. Both will
continue after the rest of the brain ceases to function until such time
as there are no more chemicals introduced to supply the reactions that
cause the impulses.


Again, false. Heartbeat and breathing are both autonomic functions. That means they are controlled by the same region that controls the rest of the autonomic functions: The hindbrain.



These areas are the oldest parts of the brain, atthe base of it where the spinal cord comes in. These are what control autonomous functions. Destroy this part of the brain, and all autonomous functions will cease. Heck, sever the vagus nerve and all autonomous functions below the point of severance will cease. What white matter surrounds the heart, is only governing local rhythm, not supplying control signals.

There is no 'subconscious' not as you're trying to define it. Rather there is the conscious mind - contained in the cortex, that part of us that deals with abstract thought, imagination, sense of self - and then there is everything else. Language processing, sensory processing (including vast swaithes dedicated to image recognition and its wide range of issues), long and short term memory association, housekeeping (the glial cells, anyone?), immune system control circuitry, speech processing (completely separate to the two language centers in the midbrain I might add).

Whilst the cerebellum in the hindbrain deals with motor control, there are motor control functions in the cortex as well. Nothing is as cut and dried as you are trying to make it seem. The same muscles can be controlled by both the conscious mind (sending control signals down through the pons into the brainstem) as can be controlled by cerebral transmissions directly.

That written, the “sub-conscious” is nothing more than
something that has been learned by someone, (or in some cases
programmed into someone), that they don’t have to think about
(consciously try) to accomplish.


Again, not entirely right. What you are trying to assign as the 'subconscious' includes a great swaithe of things from learned responses, so-called 'muscle memory', and instinctual behaviors all rolled into one. You are trying to place very different types of behavior trigger under the same loose grouped hedding, ignoring that their trigger mechanisms are very, very different, as is the method of the brain aquiring them in the first place. The instinctuals for example, develop in the womb long before birth, whereas anything codified in learned responses, does not.

You are right when you say that such responses are not thought about, just acted upon. Habits and instincts can seem alike to the non-specialist in that manner. But, an instinct is a behavior codified into the lowest levels of the brain, that does not need to travel through the hippocampus (memory storage) as part of its activation, but instead often (not always) triggers the hypothamamus (a central autonomic control section) as part of its network. Is it possible you got the two confused during your studies? They do sound alike, after all.

Instincts are additionally present in babies just as they are in children and adults. They can be observed in late-term pregnancies as well, though for reasons which I should hope are fairly obvious, we have not yet done an EEG on a human baby in the womb.

As the brain and nervous systems
develop (read about DNA, which is nothing more than a chain of
elements, on your own),


Why are you bringing genetics into it? You haven't used genes at all, in your argument, so why should your readers have to read up on it?

which said development
being chemical interactions between elements and what supplies the
electrical impulses to the nervous system as a sort of kick start.


Jesus Christ, whoever you got your degree in neurology from, I'd demand your money back. THIS garbage was part of a paper you wrote? SERIOUSLY?

The central nervous system is electrochemical in nature. Yes, the electrical signals are ion transfer based (its a biological system, what do you expect?) but many of the chemical trails produced are signals as well - they are conveying data directly, or modifying electrical data transmitted, by their very presence.

This is why neurology underwent something of a revolution when we understood that glial cells do take part in the thinking process. They are not just a support system for the neurons - they contribute to the electrochemical discussion being had in that area of the brain.

This is also when the development of a defense mechanism against
interference waveforms starts, if it didn’t then the fetus would be
nothing more than a part of the same organism as the mother.


If you ignore that the mother's brainwaves will be blocked by the intervening bone and the distances involved are too great to travel, plus the lack of any peripheral pathways connecting the two, then sure. Why not?

The

mother’s womb is basically a life support system or extra-venous
feeding tube supplying elements for the chemical interactions to occur.


At least you passed basic biology. That's something anyway.

Sorry if I seem a bit crass at this point; I am honestly wondering what your degree was in - it certainly wasn't neuroscience. CBT, perhaps?

The ‘kicking’ or movement of the fetus inside the womb is the fetus’s
nervous system developing and an electrical impulse or impulses
reaching the muscles causing a reaction and can also be a response to
an external stimulus (or sensory input) reaching the fetus.


Yes, this is what we would call an instinctual behavior. You know the kind of thing you were trying to argue doesn't exist?

At birth a
child’s brain starts receiving and processing other sensory input in
response to external stimuli. Crawling and walking are things that are
learned , usually aided by visual stimuli of seeing someone or
something else moving and trying to mimic them or it, but once learned
and repeated don’t have to be thought out to be accomplished.


Yes, this is a learned pattern. It takes a newborn baby less than six months to figure out how to recognise basic external stimulii, and we're sure of this again thanks to EEG and fMRI. By the end of that time the baby can do complex tasks like recognise its parents faces. Not a whole lot else.

Crawling is a natural extension of understanding its own body. Even if done in isolation - or in a baby raised by quadrupeds - trhis still occurs, as evidenced by said 'wildman' individuals still being able to walk when they've never been around humans. Its working out how all the limbs work, and what to do with them to locomote. Mimicry will help of course, as its all more data to be added to the pile. Mimicry won't always work of course - again its why a baby being taken care of by a single wheelchair-bound parent will still learn to walk if its limbs are capable of that. That's why there are other systems - innate systems - the child can fall back upon. It's sense of proprioception is ideal for that.

Talking would be an example of both sub-conscious and conscious processes. Once

someone learns how to pronounce or say the words then they don’t have

to consciously think about doing so, however someone can consciously

think about what words to use or if that someone chooses to respond

with words or not. A child can learn to mimic words before it learns

either their definitions or their spelling.


Talking yes, language aquisition,no. Language aquisition is essential early on, as a lot of the brain's later network building demands a logical structure to build upon. It isn't supplied with one intrinsically so it has to build with the one the group uses. After a while this becomes innate to that particular brain - the coding language evrything else from that point on is written in, if you like. Without exposure to that early on, the brain's potential for growth is sorely limited. See aforementioned wildmen.

This happens due to the
child’s brain comparing (or correlating) the auditory evoked potentials
that occur from it hearing itself to the auditory evoked potentials
that occur from hearing what the child is trying to mimic or imitate.
(This is also how an impressionist would learn to imitate others).


You're sort-of right. It's just a minor quibble, but the event-related potentials aren't involved in learning. They happen far too late in the process.

Speech after all is voiced thought.


Incorrect. Speech is voiced conscious thought. Same brain areas, same pathways. You're just speaking it rather than musing it in your head. Its a cortex thing - which is why the speech processing center is in the cortex, rather than down in the midbrain with the other language centers.

Also a child may learn the meaning,
to a certain extent, of some simplistic words before learning to spell


No shit sherlock. That's bloody obvious, if you don't mind me saying so. They're going off the concepts associated with that word combined with the way their brain processes data - the logical structure or internal coding language I talked about above. Spelling is completely unrelated to that.

or read through what is known as conditioned response. In other words,
if said child makes a certain sound then a certain effect may happen.

For example, the child yells “ma” or “mom” and someone responds then
the child will associate one with the other. So if its mother responds
then the child associates the two, but by the same effect if said child
yelled “ma” or “mom” and the father responds this would then be what
the child will associate with said noise until taught the definitions
of the words.



Yup, standard conditioned response. It does require a mind developed enough to be able to see how cause and effect tie together. That is something that can only come with time and experience. A newborn has neither. So according to your theory, it should not be crying, much less exhibit the same exact behavior patterns we see in every other newborn, even ones in different maternity wards on different continents.

Strange that, isn't it? It's almost like they have a preconditioned, preprogrammed instinctual response that isn't learned.

By associate I mean this is the set of evoked potentials
through sensory input (whether an auditory, visual or other response
was made) that the child’s brain will correlate with the evoked
potentials from the sound that it made. If the child could actually
think the words to make this association, then said child would also be
able to say the words and would also know what the words meant.


Nope, as you have proven all throughout this paper, one can say the words and still have no clue what the words actually mean.

Emotions come from how someone perceives an external
stimulus, or how they have been programmed to perceive said stimulus.


Again you argue against your own point. If they have been programmed with the behavior then its not a learned behavior. It is something done at an instinctual level.

A simple “No” may cause a child, or in some cases an adult, to become
angry or sad when in fact it may have been very beneficial, i.e.
reaching for something on the stove, grabbing for a sharp object, etc.
This is also from the conditioned response thing where the child’s
brain has already associated reaching for something with getting it


This is associative memory, something very different to instinctual behavior.

especially in a child where the definitions of various objects or what
they do has not yet been learned.


Do what? This makes no sense whatsoever in the context of your previous paragraph.

Fear would be an emotion that can be

caused by an absence of external stimuli, however this only happens
when external stimuli have been present before. Once someone has
learned how to think to themselves or how to visualize something in
their brain, which also happens due to the association of evoked
potentials that occur in someone’s brain to various external stimuli,
then this can sometimes also be a way for a person to change their
emotions. This however is also causing an emotion in response to a
stimulus.



I called it didn't I? CBT. You're not a serious neurologist or neuroscientist at all.

Again, neither thoughts nor emotions transfer by any kind of
brain projection.


If we ignore the fact that brainwaves exist and can be read, then sure. We might have to sweep a few tens of thousand pieces of BMI technology quietly under the carpet to ignore this, however. That might be a problem, especially as some of them are now on toy store shelves.

A couple of examples: Someone you enjoy seeing or
talking to arrives where you are or phones you. This stimulus in turn
evokes potentials in your brain which your brain associates with
pleasant emotions. At which point you become happy or glad, however
this person is in a bad mood or as some call it a ‘negative’
emotional state. You are happy, they are not. This person then tells
you why they are not happy which in turn changes your emotional state
in response to the evoked potentials from the external stimulus (the
other person’s story).

The emotional change occurring due to the
association of your brain with the evoked potentials from the story or
due to the evoked potentials from the stimulus of seeing someone that
is usually associated with good emotions not in a good mood. This would
also apply if say someone that you don’t like enters wherever you are.
You were in a good mood, but in response to said stimulus (the person
entering) and the processes mentioned above an emotional change occurs.
Even if the person you don’t like is in a very good mood. This would
also be why a scenario like the one just mentioned can cause a brief
emotional response to just the person entering while not changing
someone’s entire mood.



And this has what to do with your claims made previously, exactly?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by KoD2:

Since everyone is born a sinner… by such basis, all is inherently evil…all else are corrective actions.

I am not born a sinner.
What now?

we do need a basis that can discern the inherent to debate further. unless you can provide other basis, i wouldnt waste time discussing subjectives…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jim_vierling:

@ tenco1

When a word has more than one definition, the context that the word was used in should be applied.

And when the adjective “all” is used, the amount of definitions increases.

All behaviors associated with so-called human nature are learned, would have been the correct interpretation of my original statement.

Yes, except for one thing, you said “all behavior,” which heavily implies that any human behavior is learned, including the kind that isn’t. Had you just said “All behavior in human nature/morals is learned,” you would have been much more correct.

You already knew that, you just decided to get into semantics to get your kicks.

Well it was at first, but then you started saying thing out of line with most of science.

You basically confirm that with your reply in the following:

All I confirmed with that post is that I make funnies sometimes. If you wanted an example of semantics, you could have used this.

Originally posted by tenco1:

No shit, Sherlock. You’re the one who used a broad term in an even broader way, we were just saying someone was wrong on the Internet.

It’s important, btw.

That’s exactly my point, you can’t use a few definition for the term “behavior” and act like it can fit every situation perfectly, it’s why there are classifications and types of terms in science, to make a more clear and singular definition.

And again, I ask for sources to your information, the only difference with Vika is that she has provided a lot in the past, and is therefore more inherently trustwrothy (to me, at least), than you, someone who as far as I know, just decided it would be fun to talk about how certain aspects of scince are wrong, without directly saying they are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

the only difference with Vika is that she has provided a lot in the past, and is therefore more inherently trustwrothy (to me, at least), than you

Why thank you Tenco. There’s that and that I tend to absolutely drown someone in sources if push comes to shove.

However, I would temper that with a remark stating that outside my professional core areas, I’m as useless as anyone else. I’ve been caught out too many times not to feel burned.

Unfortunately for some, this discussion is most definitely not outside my core.

So, as Tenco says, sources please. Preferably not ones you wrote yourself, or I’ll just tear any factual errors to shreds again.

 
Flag Post

Knowing how things work in our head wont make it any easier to define inherent… without an objective moral basis… but i enjoyed the input from vika as usual.

 
Flag Post

I’m using the basis for inherent, that it’s in there at the start. It’s one of the processes that gets added to the brain as a complete entity when your brain is forming in the womb, and is fully ready to go out of the box as it were. (double entendre intended)

Even before your ability to learn is encoded into the brain, these basic behaviors are quite literally programmed in. Laid down by the genes circuit by circuit, the same as the other basic cell networks all throughout the body.