Yes more of on this subject :). The NYT has another article similar to the one I posted last week, however, this time it's relating to our character traits.

A couple of scientists think it does:

AST ASIAN and European cultures have long been very different, Richard E. Nisbett argued in his recent book "The Geography of Thought." East Asians tend to be more interdependent than the individualists of the West, which he attributed to the social constraints and central control handed down as part of the rice-farming techniques Asians have practiced for thousands of years.

A separate explanation for such long-lasting character traits may be emerging from the human genome. Humans have continued to evolve throughout prehistory and perhaps to the present day, according to a new analysis of the genome reported last week by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago. So human nature may have evolved as well.

If so, scientists and historians say, a fresh look at history may be in order. Evolutionary changes in the genome could help explain cultural traits that last over many generations as societies adapted to different local pressures.

Interesting read for those that are interested.

Full article here

Props to slashdot.org.

Like father like son.

This is old news to anyone with a clue, but good to have it finally backed up by a bit of scientific research.

Way to miss the point.

I'm not sure if he has the attention span to read several paragraphs ;P

i missed the point? hahaha, oh you can't be serious. here, i'll give you the theory that i came up with 2 years ago so you can better understand why i used such a cliche philosophy to express it:

everything in your body is in accordance to the genes of your family - your mother's and your father's combined. your skin colour, body shape, the strength of your senses, all of it. it has been long overlooked that the brain is also from this. your capacity will depend greatly on the way your mother's and father's genes have complimented one another. i'll go as far as saying that even the general structure of your brain is very similar to that of your parents, and due to that structure being so similar, your emotional responses/trigger systems will have a lot of things the same in them, and this of course means that that which is allowing you to develop your personality is being influenced by what your parents' personalities were influenced by.

so, like father like son - that was just an observation someone came up with, i for one have seen a lot of my father's traits in myself since i've been paying attention, as well as my mother's. and i haven't met anyone yet who thinks they're nothing like their parents, and if there are any out there, i'll say they're either adopted, in denial, or somehow managed to have the genes of a previous generation amplified, but there'd still be a lot of their parents in them too, so you can almost scratch that one.

the article is talking more generally, where environment will effect an entire culture, thus forcing them to think in a similar manner and thus developing certain areas of the brain to better accomodate whatever peril/serenity/excitement they may face and then passing those traits down through their children.

here's another theory for you, what is talent? how can people have this amazing ability to achieve things without ever doing them before? i put it down to this exact same theory -- combine the genes of your parents and therefore combine their strengths and weaknesses, your brain and body will already be set up for the things they had tried to achieve/conditioned themselves for.

it's no accident or coincindence that my father, a man who i didn't really know up until i was 18, and i are both interested in philosophy, science and psychology to a certain degree, philosophy being the major focus. i come up with hundreds of theories of how life works, just as he does, and then it's a few years later that, after many have pointed a finger at us and laughed, we're proven right by science.

what point did i miss anyway?

I read a great article about a theory which explains the reason the majority of people in western sociery are right-handed (this is a trait which has a genetic disposition).

Back in the middle ages when Eurpoe was one big s***fight, those who went into battle with a sword in their right hand and shield in their left hand (as you would expect from a right-hander) were more likely to survive because their shield (strapped to their left arm) better protected their heart. Left-handed swordsmen did not get this protection and as a result, a statisitically significant number more right-handers came home from wars to pass their genes to the next generation.

Repeat over a few hundred years and a definite trend emerges towards right-handedness in the general population.

oh cool, wikipedia has a section on it


last edited by korbs at 16:48:49 13/Mar/06

^ I didn't know that, pretty interesting tho.

Keep digging dice.

keep hiding behind nothing you little troll

i put it to you that you don't even know what the article is about, nor do you have the capacity to understand what i'm saying

dice, you keep coming up with some real bulls*** that isn't supported by any scientific evidence, only your own "common sense" theories.

Hypothesis, not theory. Get it right.

yeah and you keep just making statements about what i'm doing without backing them up with any 'scientific evidence, only your own common sense' theories.

hypocrite.

it's no accident or coincindence that my father, a man who i didn't really know up until i was 18, and i are both interested in philosophy, science and psychology to a certain degree, philosophy being the major focus. i come up with hundreds of theories of how life works, just as he does, and then it's a few years later that, after many have pointed a finger at us and laughed, we're proven right by science.

well, i'm right into philosophy and my father ISN'T! Theory disproven!

Essentially what you're saying is that you and you father both excell at making specious, unfounded assumptions (backed up with personal anecdotes) from the comfort of your reclining armchairs.

This is old news to anyone who has a clue.

last edited by korbs at 21:50:01 13/Mar/06

your father isn't? must be a new interest for your family then, evidence can be seen in that you suck at it

also, i wouldn't expect you to understand what i was really saying champ, go back to cs, your kind are welcomed there. reason i say this? i've been proven right more often than not by scientists so far ... major one was the theory on why we have male and female and don't just clone ourselves like some species. and the last two from this forum - the love heart shape, worked that out ages ago, and that personality traits can be passed down through genetics ... also worked out a long long time ago

just 3 of plenty ... what have you worked out? oh, right, you're a textbook, you learn what you are taught and that's it ... ok nps, hahahahaha leave the thinking to the big boys buddy

dice, i feel sorry for your future children

means so much from a man whose life revolves around a car

i just hope you guys don't have children

nice attempt dice, but poor execution.

for an amateur philosopher you really don't think things through.

^ who the f*** is this toss anyway?
[edit] I meant dice, not nF, because nF is a cainer.

Man, you are telling us all how much 'we all need a life', yet you are posting on an internet forum about unfounded philosophies that you 'thought up' in some form of spare time.
Unfounded to the point they have not even a statistical analysis nor any form of true research that you have conclusively completed, for them to mean s*** in the real world (that means, the one outside your head).

Your hypotheses aren't worth the pixels that are displaying them, no evidence, nobody cares. Please walk up to someone important with one of your unfounded hypotheses (not one that someone else has actually you know, researched for you that you seem incapable of providing evidence to support your statements anyway) so they can laugh at you.

After that, cut your wrists with the tissue box once you run out of tissues, k?

Get a hobby, take up a sport or something, anything but continuing to fill each thread with how 'gay/stupid/no-life/socially inept etc.' everyone is on this forum.

last edited by Loki at 23:16:39 13/Mar/06

dice is a twat. that is all.

i agree with everything that has been said about dice.

when did i call someone gay? i'm pretty sure only you wannabes used that, and that was because i was asking what the fascination with breasts was?

can the bs buddy, i wasn't the one that started the crap in each thread ... it was the lot of you with your stupid attacks that had no basis. at least i have actually done some research into what i've been saying ... i'll find the studies and documentaries if you really want, go make a list of what you want me to prove of what i've said.

oh and before you twats get all smug because the others agree with you, just remember there are a lot of christians in the world too ... doesn't make them right either.

Dice just cause some genetics guru comes out and says some s*** doesnt prove anything. If you are a true philosopher you would understand that proof is a tricky concept.

Here is an example.

PROVE to me that instead of your genetic makeup determining who you are, as opposed to what you are(which is lunacy any self respecting scientist will deny your claim), it's not an invisible angel guiding your decisions from moment to moment.

now you could truck out the usual anti religous bs or you could accept that you can't. You can chose not to believe it but that is something a little different to proof.


Hi tung I was rude and didnt say hi in the last thread

just remember there are a lot of christians in the world too ... doesn't make them right either.

Do you have irrefutable evidence that nobody else has yet been able to provide that says otherwise?
If you do, do you mind sharing the meaning to life and the answer as to why the universe exists or how it came to be?

For a psychologically and 'philopshically' minded person, you are very narrowminded and appear to incapable of accepting the improbable.

Atheism is blindly believing, it's just on the opposite side of the fence of the religious.

Look up agnosticism, you might just want to join some of us who like to take a look at the bigger picture.
Committing yourself to one side of an argument before knowing the absolute correctness of it is foolish.

last edited by Loki at 00:57:16 14/Mar/06

PornoPete: I know proof is a tricky concept, but I get tired of floundering around with all those phrases like "I believe this theory at this point because" and "It appears to me that", it's much easier to just say "This is how it is." Not that I think what I'm saying isn't true, but I accept it isn't 100% proven, but until such time as it is proven otherwise, I will await further evidence before changing my mind.

Also, I'd say "Who I am" is the same as "What I am", but that will only be understood if you share a similar viewpoint on reality to me (in short, that could queue another long discussion which I don't think I'm up for, it's getting boring even now. Let's agree to disagree or something before we both waste time).


Loki: As someone who is interested in philosophy and psychology, I am pretty sure it would be fruitless trying to persuade you of anything, as a fair few people will only learn what they are ready to. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying I disagree with you on a few points you just made.

I agree it is foolish to commit yourself entirely to one side when you don't know the absolute truth, however, I'm confident on certain things such as the existence of god, I'm right. But, that isn't to say I wouldn't change my mind straight away if it was indeed proven beyond all doubt. Right now, all the evidence thus far has suggested what I believe. Hell, I'd believe in God in a second if it seemed even remotely true, this reality is boring compared to what it could be with a God. My heart lies in wanting a god, but my mind knows better from experience.

Don't mistake my strength of opinion for being narrow minded. There has been nothing said here that is new to me in relation to my theories.

I find the concept of a god to be highly improbable, as do you, that's agnosticism.

Don't be so quick to say religions are wrong when you state you are prepared to believe them with definite proof.
Saying you disagree with the religious because they believe without irrefutable evidence is different.

Either way, have you taken many methamphetamines before? Large doses?
Has there been a history of psychosis in any of your family by any chance?

Fair enough. I will simply state that if you think you have a 2500+ year old problem nailed you are a fool.

Loki, no.

Pete, I'll say that you're basing that on little more than your own experience of not being able to get your head around a problem that old, and therefore concluding that no one else possibly could. I'm confident in what I say for a reason. But, in truth, I should probably not be saying it, because people like you will object in the same manner I object to the actual belief, because we're both deep in our own conclusions that we think are 'ultimate', therefore nothing else above or beyond them yet.

In short: you are confident in thinking that no one could possibly have a 2,500 year old problem nailed and therefore are fools. I am confident that I have got that problem nailed, and those who can't see what I see are fools.

This is a stalemate, let's just let it go.

Atheism is blindly believing, it's just on the opposite side of the fence of the religious.

Without picking a side here - I wouldn't equate the two in terms of "blind belief"

Sure, there is no 'scientific' proof for the nonexistence of God or gods, but for what it's worth there is the "Occam's razor" approach - that is, make as few assumptions as you can in order to explain something

The thing that needs "explaining" in this case is the existence of the universe and everything in it, including us

Atheists would say the universe just is

Theists would say the universe was created by a God who just is

Based on Occam's razor (indeed not a hard and fast logical rule, more of a rule of thumb) the former makes fewer assumptions

No Dice, I am at the end of a degree double majoring in philosophy. Im not having trouble 'getting my head around the problem' you are. But let me just say that you think in your head that you have solved a problem that eluded Plato Aristotle Decartes Kant Hume Nietzsche Hiedegger Camus Einstien Russell Satre to name a few. Cudos, that would make you about the most intellectually vein person I have heard of. Just to recap 'like father like son' sovles the problem of mind gratz gg how didnt we see it before? You have got to be kidding. What other little philosophical nuts have you and your dad cracked. Cartesian skeptism no doubt. where do you stand on the subject object debate. how do you feel about numbers are they real or are they something else. what exactly is a species have you nutted out the problem of natural classification.

Excuse me if I meet someone who claims to have solved a problem like that the same way I would someone who claims to be god.

Im going to go watch the OC

LOL, Pete you had me up til you said you were going to watch the OC!!!

I didnt in the end I watched an episode of the extras. The one with patrick stewart.

That said you have learn how to watch the oc. once you start you cant stop. I enjoy the mechanics of it if you will. The stories are all crap but you can see the cogs of the series moving behind a thin veil of cheese, thicker at times ofcourse. But seriously if you watch a season as a whole peice, plot lines are dropped in with scientific precision.

All that aside the article was a good read thanks opec.

holy s*** its pornopete

where you been?

haha, pwned! Pornopete is my new favourite poster!

Loki, i think you need to go and re-read the definitions of agnosticism, and weak & strong atheism. Also, atheism isn't 'blind faith' at all (the word literally means 'absence of theism' just like asymmetry means 'absence of symmetry'), as you are making no positive assertion.

Also, atheism is the 'default setting' for all humans when they enter the world. Religious notions are learned and imprinted from external sources. Nobody would ever 'know' jesus if they wern't told about it or read about it.

If you are going to be a fence-sitting agnostic, then by all rights you philosophically *have* to give equal validity to the chrisian, islamic, norse, greek , egyptian and aztec (and every other culture's) pantheon, because you really can't be sure if any of them are real or not. Most agnostics don't do this however, they just see a christian god exists vs. doesn't exist, which is really a false dillemma fallacy.

Also, i'm really hoping the new word for atheists kicks off. Bright! no no, i'm serious, check it out

<3 dawkins.

last edited by korbs at 09:23:44 14/Mar/06

last edited by korbs at 12:56:09 14/Mar/06

Back in the middle ages when Eurpoe was one big s***fight, those who went into battle with a sword in their right hand and shield in their left hand (as you would expect from a right-hander) were more likely to survive because their shield (strapped to their left arm) better protected their heart. Left-handed swordsmen did not get this protection and as a result, a statisitically significant number more right-handers came home from wars to pass their genes to the next generation.

Repeat over a few hundred years and a definite trend emerges towards right-handedness in the general population.

oh cool, wikipedia has a section on it

uhhh yeahhhh but wikipedia also says:

* The heart is not that far off center. Protecting it with a shield would result in a weak selective pressure.
* There have not been enough generations since the Bronze Age to make a difference.
* Analysis of ancient cave paintings indicate that humanity was right-handed long before the Bronze Age.
* It does not explain why there would be either right- or left-handedness to begin with.

yeah, i know...i wasn't saying it's true, just interesting to read about..

Loki, i think you need to go and re-read the definitions of agnosticism, and weak & strong athiesm. Also, athiesm isn't 'blind faith' at all (the word literally means 'absence of theism' just like asymmetry means 'absence of symmetry'), as you are making no positive assertion.

Also, athiesm is the 'default setting' for all humans when they enter the world

Precisely. I would respect Christian "beliefs" if Jesus was truly something people dreamt about or saw on psychadelic experiences. But he isn't - you have to be conditioned to believe in Jesus by those in authority - usually when you're a helpless kid. There are infact themes that do reoccur in the human mind and philosophers and psychologists are interested in that, so I'll respect that.

last edited by Idol at 10:04:39 14/Mar/06

I'm still interested in this topic, so can someone explain to me why I'm apparently wrong when it comes to what this article is saying? And seriously do it this time, not just "you're an idiot, I'm so much smarter than you, take your theories elsewhere blah blah blah blah blah".

Also, what is 'mind gratz' meant to be?

hen by all rights you philosophically *have* to give equal validity to the chrisian, islamic, norse, greek , egyptian and aztec

Is there anywhere that stated I didn't? In fact, read the other thread [may have been the sydney one, not sure] and you'll see otherwise.

Also, athiesm isn't 'blind faith' at all, as you are making no positive assertion.

Say what?
I'm a little confused as to your definition of it, as ::

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
3: Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.

-----

If you know of theism, and you an Atheist - then you are actively disbelieving theism.
If you do not know of theism, you are an Atheist, but you cannot claim to be one, because to know that you are an Atheist is to know that you do not believe in a god, if you don't know what one is; you cannot claim to not believe in it.

I do agree that we are all Atheists from birth in the true sense of the word, but this is without choice.

Realistically, I dont think either of us is incorrect, the word is ambigious.

Agnosticism neither actively beleives nor disbelieves.

You're right loki, the word 'atheism' on it's own covers a large amount of beliefs (and lack thereof) which is why it is broken down into 'weak' and 'strong' atheism.

In simple terms, a weak atheist is saying "i see no evidence for the existence of a deity, therefore i don't believe one exists".

A strong atheist is saying "I have examined the social and hostorical fabric of human history and can pretty honestly say that all religion is a crock."

So while a weak atheist is in a more 'safe' position when it comes to philosphical debating (because you cannot 100% disprove anything), a strong athiest is a perfectly justified position (imo), given the mountains of scientific, historical and sociological knowledge we have accumulated (especially in the last century.)

In essence, the (polite) strong atheist isn't saying "your god doesn't exist, you suck", but rather "the things people of your faith have attributed to a supernatural god have perfectly natural/historical explainations, lets go to the museum".

So, yeah, you are right that a strong atheist is making a positive assertion, but it's reasoned and has no element of 'blind faith', so you still cannot equate it with any kind of religious belief.

edit: remember that any religious person (of whatever faith) is by definition a strong atheist towards every other religion (past and present). However, most of them don't see this fact, they just blindly believe "I'm right, they're wrong" and thats the only thing that matters, which is really quite vacuous reasoning.


last edited by korbs at 12:54:32 14/Mar/06

In simple terms, a weak athiest is saying "i see no evidence for the existence of a deity, therefore i don't believe one exists".

So then, is the 'weak' atheist saying they do not believe due to a lack of evidence to support the theism of a deity? They are more of a "I will only believe it [theism] when I see it" by your explaination? Is this what you mean?

Whereas the Agnostic says "I will believe whichever shows good supporting evidence to be true".

It kinda seems like the 'weak' Atheist is still Agnostic (or vice versa) by these definitions.

A strong (or true) Atheist by my interpretation is one who would refuse to believe in a god even if they saw something "miraculous" happen. (e.g. they saw someone magically levitate in the air to avoid burnign to death in a house fire or something)

Due to go to uni, will later read your interpretation if you reply korbs =]

last edited by Loki at 12:43:58 14/Mar/06

I'm finding this all quite interesting. Hey Korbs - do u study philosophy at UQ by any chance? You sound like someone I know...

Loki, Don't take my hugely simplified definitions too seriously, i was just trying point out the difference without getting too bogged down in the philosophical implications. Wikipedia has 2 excellent articles on Weak and Stong atheism which will explain it much better than i can.

Weak atheism
Strong atheism

edit for Agent 99: sorry, i'm not the guy you're thinking of. He sounds pretty cool though, go ask him out for a coffee :P

last edited by korbs at 13:17:57 14/Mar/06

Haha, no I'm not. I've studied some philosophy before but nothing in the area of the philosophy of religion. Just thought I'd see cos you sound like a guy in my philosophy class last semester.

Anyways, ta.

i missed the point? hahaha, oh you can't be serious. here, i'll give you the theory that i came up with 2 years ago so you can better understand why i used such a cliche philosophy to express it:

everything in your body is in accordance to the genes of your family - your mother's and your father's combined. your skin colour, body shape, the strength of your senses, all of it. it has been long overlooked that the brain is also from this. your capacity will depend greatly on the way your mother's and father's genes have complimented one another. i'll go as far as saying that even the general structure of your brain is very similar to that of your parents, and due to that structure being so similar, your emotional responses/trigger systems will have a lot of things the same in them, and this of course means that that which is allowing you to develop your personality is being influenced by what your parents' personalities were influenced by.

so, like father like son - that was just an observation someone came up with, i for one have seen a lot of my father's traits in myself since i've been paying attention, as well as my mother's. and i haven't met anyone yet who thinks they're nothing like their parents, and if there are any out there, i'll say they're either adopted, in denial, or somehow managed to have the genes of a previous generation amplified, but there'd still be a lot of their parents in them too, so you can almost scratch that one.

What your saying in there is, correct me if I'm wrong, YOU and nobody else came up with this thoery that genetics determine your brain thus you personality. Well wether or not you missed the point of the article you cant seriously be trying to say that you came up with that point of view. As evidence I point to the fact that you use a saying that has lost its origins its so old. Beside that people have been suggesting that the brain determines personality for at least the last hundred years. Even Decartes mentions thought and the brain being conected in on of the meditations and they were written in the late 1600's.

Now moving right along the problem of mind, for evolutionary biology, is where the f*** does consciousness come from. What you appear to be saying you have got it pegged. It comes from your parents, well conGRATZ again did you figure that one out yourself or did you get help? Population genetics is a little more involved then the most elementary part of gene transfer in humans I think youll find.

hey nF long time, Ive been doing this and that. Live in hawethorn these days.

*edit* oh and as for the problem of mind if you were 40 years old and had spent the last 20 years researching your claim I'd me more inclined to believe you. As it stands you havent and are claiming to know more about the problem then chomsky and chalmers combined. Surely you realise why make a claim like that and backing with nothing more the personal anecdotes is a problem.

last edited by PornoPete at 14:53:37 14/Mar/06

Like father like son.

This is old news to anyone with a clue, but good to have it finally backed up by a bit of scientific research.

I'll let you in on the point you missed here. "Like father like son" isn't the point of that article. "Like father like son" doesn't begin to address the question of whether it's a matter of genetics or social/environmental influence.

To say something so ambiguous following the OP shows that you don't really grasp the point of the article.

And then this one follows it up...

here's another theory for you, what is talent? how can people have this amazing ability to achieve things without ever doing them before? i put it down to this exact same theory -- combine the genes of your parents and therefore combine their strengths and weaknesses, your brain and body will already be set up for the things they had tried to achieve/conditioned themselves for.

This flies in the face of widely accepted evolutionary theory. I guess you and your dad have somehow come up with a brand new way of looking at things. Or a very old way of looking at things. Personally I'm going to laugh at you until Ben Johnson has a baby that can crawl 100m in 10seconds because his mind and body are set up for running thanks to all the running training his father did.

great responses, thanks for confirming what i suspected all along.

you guys rule ;)

Confirming what exactly? If you are suggesting that I don't understand you please enlighten me. However your posts thus far show that you either don't understand or can't.

Your pompous, tawdry come backs don't wash here.

dice, what I think they were imlying, is that some statements are so entirely dumb/wrong, that they don't even need, or sometimes don't even have, reasonable explinations why. Saying " 'Like father like son' is a stupid thing to say in this situation", is another way of saying " 'like father like son' is such an unbelievablely insuffiecient thing to say in this situation, so much so that it is just plain inaccurate, that surely noone but an idiot would dare say it seriously."

so if by

great responses, thanks for confirming what i suspected all along.

you meant: "thanks for confirming that what I said was unbelievably ignorant", then you're right to thank them.

If you were trying to be snyde, then it just exacerbates your stupidity.

last edited by bargain at 18:15:14 14/Mar/06

^ who the f*** is this toss anyway?
[edit] I meant dice, not nF, because nF is a cainer.

Hasn't nf's ass had enough of your lips already. Fkn brown noser.

And on that note, this thread has officially evolved from a s*** to a s*** stain.

Sort of like your race.

DTA

last edited by fpot at 18:35:42 14/Mar/06

But much more like your mum.

KMBAA

ROFFLE! funniest thread EVA

if there's one thing dice are good at, it's being rolled

jim i think you just rolled a 20

lol @ jim

yeah you guys are right, thanks for showing me the error of my ways (Y)

there's just no rehibilitating some people
the honesty is just too much

Jim you're a bastard.

Yours analy,

The ring master.

no u r