I just cannot fathom this guy's mind. How he can rattle off authors, articles, books, etc. with seemingly almost any topic. And of course there is the immense scope of what he has read and/or viewed and soaked in. Uncanny.
He went to a progressive pre-school and primary school that allowed him to pursue his own interests instead of ingest programmed instruction. Around age 12 he began haunting anarchist book stores in New York City and also worked a newsstand his uncle owned, soaking up the brilliant commentary from the most intelligent immigrant minds from around the world. Later he went through a very unconventional university program that had all-day seminars on wide-ranging topics held in someone's apartment or a local restaurant.
I really like what Chomsky says in the end about how scientists should be cautious about claiming more than we know and about how much of evolutionary psychology are educated guesses. I'm a fan of Pinker, Cosmides, Tooby, etc. and think many people in that field are doing good work. But I also think since ev-psych has become popular there is a huge amount of work that really are just guesses and speculation. I used to think the phrase "just so story" was a strawman criticism but with a lot of the latest work in ev-psych I think it's valid.
Yes a lot of EP starts with guesses based on our understanding of evolution by natural selection but like any scientific field these guesses and hypotheses are subject to being tested. If the observational evidence fails to disprove the guess then we can take it seriously and pry further. All scientific theories in all fields of science start with an educated guess to explain an observation, I don't see how EP is alone in this.
I mean, it's easy to believe that. But have you taken the time to read actual articles? Sweeping generalisations are easy, checking to see if they're right is not. For example, if you read through the classic text The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, his claims still stand, even though Stephen J Gould is regarded as being "More correct". Today, more and more tests are conducted, and the medical fields are SWAMPED with information using Evo-Psychology, neurology and such. There is so much information that upcoming doctors are now required to be able to sift through searches for the most likely explanation, instead of knowing everything, because that's just not possible anymore. It's too much to know.
Every science starts out from a theoretical framework used to generate hypotheses. The theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology is very clear: it’s applying the principles of evolution biology to humans. This has served evolutionary psychology very well, as they are able to generate hypotheses that keep being vindicated by the empirical studies. It is true that was a biologist who applied certain empirically derived principles to the topic of humans and what that could mean for what kind of society humans ought to strive for. This may make him an evolutionary thinker but the term evolutionary psychology is more narrowly defined, as being based on the principles of Darwinian selection. This seems more apt as humans is a species who reproduce sexually and aren’t the hive creatures that Kropotkin was most interested in. This doesn’t mean that what Kropotkin said wasn’t interesting or useful, and his legacy has in some ways been carried forward by those evolutionary psychologists who study populations and group selection, e.g. David Sloan Wilson.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 "The theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology is very clear: it’s applying the principles of evolution biology to humans" I agree with that, but the people that I most respect in the field don't constrain themselves to only evolutionary theory. I think that is absurd. Just as it was absurd to think that stimulus response theory could explain everything about human psychology. The people I respect the most such as Scot Atran, Chomsky, David Premak, and others don't confine themselves to only evolutionary theory but use whatever research is relevant to the problem they are studying. I actually think people who do primarily focus on only the evolutionary aspects like Cosmides and Tooby would even agree with that although of course I have no way of knowing. "This has served evolutionary psychology very well, as they are able to generate hypotheses that keep being vindicated by the empirical studies." I think that is debatable actually. I'm not saying there aren't good examples of evolutionary psychology where theories have been validated by experiments. There clearly are such as the work of Cosmides and Tooby. But a lot of the discipline are also hypotheses that are difficult or impossible to test with current technology. That's not a knock against ev-psych, I think it's true for any theory of psychology. Also, there is a lot of BS written by people who barely understand evolution but sells because it is presented as evolutionary psychology. One book I remember seeing recently was a book that claimed the stock market could be explained by evolutionary principles. It was nothing but baseless speculation and gibberish. That book wasn't really serious science but there is some work that is presented as serious that falls in that category as well. The work of Haidt on morality for example. If you read his work it is clear he doesn't understand the issues of group selection or some of the literature on the evolutionary hypotheses for taboos such as incest. You mention the work of David Sloan Wilson. I read his book Unto Others and don't recall any examples where he did experiments that supported his theory. He does talk about experimental results but (at least from what I remember) everything he says, like a lot of psychology, is post-hoc rather than first stating his hypothesis and then doing specific experiments that would support that hypothesis over alternatives. Again, I'm not saying that invalidates his work. A lot of psychology is that way and IMO psychology is such an immature science we need well informed speculation as a starting point for good experiments.
Humanity (our human nature, in my lingo), is a terminal autoimmune disease. I'm a Hobbesian on that score: “The life of man” in the state of nature, Hobbes famously writes, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In the state of nature, security is impossible for anyone, and the fear of death dominates every aspect of life. Being rational, humans will naturally seek to be rid of fear--I'm certain that humans are more emotional than rational, however.
Eminently sensible comments. We can assume a human nature because every species has a nature, but never exhaust it by necessarily narrow definition. No analysis, even of a recognized work of art, is ever equivalent to the art itself, and that is inanimate. "Nature" is an allegorical word in its best sense. It is useful in a practical way for narrow analyses, the nature of a chair, a shoe, etc., but never broad, as in the world, the universe, the mind. One serious problem with society has been the insistence on defining or assessing the "nature" of women, and some are still clinging to this useless and destructive way of thinking, Women will do what they will do and that is a function of opportunities, education and self-knowledge. What evolutionary psychologists may think of that, be damned.
Thank you most sincerely. I don't know what books I could recommend: it is simple logic: a definition is like a road map- certainly useful, but it isn't a road, and even then it can be in error and lead to all kinds of trouble. All entities with a mind and feeling are mysteries, as is the universe itself. Women have been defined as functions by men since "civilization," and that is because women are hard, impossible really, to control: brutal, insensitive laws and actions will control behaviour, but not thoughts. And some men feel threatened by that simple fact. I am a vegetarian and many of my regrets are that I once assumed animals are made for our use. What arrogance! What stupid arrogance!!! Perhaps we will evolve to become truly human - which entails awareness of and respect for the dignity and beauty of all life.
@@doriswrencheisler4386 so does this mean woman’s nature of being is similar to that of a man but women were conditioned to suppress it? Women are just as aggressive wild & domineering ?
Socrates of his time. Never ceases to impress. He sets the bar very high. To meet him for most would be like Democritus meeting Socrates. Albeit of course that Democritus was a very gifted mind.
*Unauthorized remote access* is the path of least resistance. Simple biology. The world looks very different to you when you’re scientifically literate.
Human nature Liberals view human nature as a set of innate qualities intrinsic to the individual, placing little or no emphasis on social or historical conditioning. Humans are self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures; but they are also governed by reason and are capable of personal development, particularly through education. Conservatives believe that human beings are essentially limited and security-seeking creatures, drawn to the known, the familiar, the tried and tested. Human rationality is unreliable, and moral corruption is implicit in each human individual. The new right nevertheless embraces a form of self-seeking individualism. ’ Socialists regard humans as essentially social creatures, their capacities and behaviour being shaped more by nurture than by nature, and particularly by creative labour. Their propensity for cooperation, sociability and rationality means that the prospects for human development and personal growth are considerable.“ Anarchists view human nature in highly optimistic terms. Humans are either seen to have a powerful inclination towards sociable, gregarious and cooperative behaviour, being capable of maintaining order through collective effort alone, or to be basically self-interested but rationally enlightened. Fascists believe that humans are ruled by the will and other non-rational drives, most particularly by a deep sense of social belonging focused on nation or race. Although the masses are fitted only to serve and obey, elite members of the national community are capable of personal regeneration as ‘new men’ through dedication to the national or racial cause. Feminists usually hold that men and women share a common human nature, gender differences being culturally or socially imposed. Separatist feminists nevertheless argue that men are genetically disposed to domination and cruelty, while women are naturally sympathetic, creative and peaceful. Ecologists, particularly deep ecologists, see human nature as part of the broader ecosystem, even as part of nature itself. Materialism, greed and egoism therefore re?ect the extent to which humans have become alienated from the oneness of life and thus from their own true nature.Human fulfilment requires a return to nature. political ideologies an introduction pg77 3rd edition 2003 Andrew Heywood We have been told over and over that "you can't change human nature", but the study of emic realities shows quite the contrary, that almost anything can become "human nature" if society defines it as such. Robert Anton Wilson.
One thing that is important to remember is that everything humans does, is essentially human nature and that is EVERYTHING. One can not just cherrypick and call it natural and unnatural. We're very complex and it's not the same as analyzing the lion or the giraffe. We can, however, narrow it down to find certain aspects where all homo sapiens are the same, like eating, drinking, speaking, listening, imagining, dreaming, survival instinct, and stories... we're a species that is very fond of stories such as religion, money, nations, corporations and so forth.
@@Danskadreng There was a time when i understood this question to be very important and concluded that the many sides invested were trying to freeze the dialectic and make the definitive claim as to the fixed nature of the geological fundament/unconscious/will etc. It seemed implicit and immanent in every political squabble and nothing it seems has changed.It seems every year another turgid piece of social science or science turns over the previous prevailing view and so on in the nightmarish post-modern(please forgive)perspective.In all disciplines when the questions become smaller,the answers become greyer and some genius will point out a contradiction or antinomy...which is why i find myself more inclined to literature again.Perhaps its because it will save me having to assiduously read the clunky and strained prose of the sciences and applied(sic) sciences or perhaps its because i love a great story.Then again,looking inwards,i never felt the drive to undermine,push around,bully or make feel small,anybody else and by that metric under this ideology,i`m a total failure,natures outlaw..and that feels good.
Humans have a nature but it is not entirely fixed by genetics - it is also molded by environment. That is what makes its limitations so complicated to understand.
0:20 (To answer this dude) People have to have choices, the option to choose which system they want. New Yorkers want to be Capitalists, so be it! New Jerseys wants to be Socialists, fine too. You would learn that NO poor people would live in Capitalist countries if there were any Socialist Countries or Cities in the World. Trouble is, when there is one Socialist System in place the USA makes sure it is destroyed in order to prevent the example of success to be followed, is there any other reason the US spend so much time, money and effort with its EMBARGO on CUBA if Socialism was such a self defeating proposition.
It means-- by "plastic" ---that humans could embody their nature by "thought", and since simply the mind is not part of human nature; the mind as multi-copies within the framework of thought mechanism that is merely computational applied against human nature that is merely biology that could be nothing but, compared to the thought mechanism that can have different forms in representation, like for example, there are "many languages," a single x is human nature that, say, you could have millions of copies of the same human organism represented in number but you could not have this many millions to have many forms represented in bio-natural organs, for example, for many natural copies of the human organism the heart, as an organ millions of people have it, is studied one form.
Philosophers also have a responsibility to admit what they don't know. There is more that we do not know about human nature than what we do know. Much of what thought we knew turned out to be wrong. It is not what we do know that is the problem it was what we do not know! God "may" know but that doesn't do us any good.
Has anyone read the Kropotkin book he mentions? I've heard it referenced often. I've never read it because it seems fairly dated and I'm guessing much of the evolutionary discussion is superseded by what's called Neodarwinism or the new synthesis, but I hear Kropotkin's book mentioned so often I'm wondering if it's worth a look.
It’s less about evolution of species in general and more about human progression as a society through the lense of cooperation. I didn’t think it dated in the slightest
37Dionysos: the meme: "People are good", by which you imply that people are kind, is wishful thinking, The Statement: Some people are kind, is certainly true. However, if you mean: Humans are good (at genocide), Humans are good (at lying), Humans are good (at cruelty), these statements do correlate with an honest appraisal of human history fairly well.
Your opinion is not supported by either the numbers (evil-doers are the vast minority) or the whole human narrative, which is the mostly-cooperative CONTEXT against which so much evil happens. Otherwise, A) we likely wouldn't be here, and B) we wouldn't be so traumatized when evil breaks human norms. This mega-reality is easy to miss, and we have mostly-fake "education," media and cynical careerists (Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker etc.) to "help" us miss it while they cash in. Thanks to them we don't even know that the longest period of Western history (the first, in Minoan Crete) was quite progressive and peaceful. Very bad example in front of the slaves!
"Your opinion is not supported by either the numbers" Actually there are numerous neuroscientific studies that support that claim :) " (evil-doers are the vast minority) or the whole human narrative" Dishonesty detected :) don't play with words like that :) What % of humanity lies? How about cheats? Humans do bad things all the time however that doesn't mean kill or rape. Last time I cheked lying, cheating, stealing are also bad things. Also genius we the homo sapiens have wiped out other humanoids so much for the noble savage egalitarian.
You simply cannot "prove" a subjective, judgment-laden adjective ("evil"). You are ignoring the clear implication of your own percentages. Any "percent" is a PORTION of the whole, and it's the whole that supports my case.
I just cannot fathom this guy's mind. How he can rattle off authors, articles, books, etc. with seemingly almost any topic. And of course there is the immense scope of what he has read and/or viewed and soaked in. Uncanny.
He went to a progressive pre-school and primary school that allowed him to pursue his own interests instead of ingest programmed instruction. Around age 12 he began haunting anarchist book stores in New York City and also worked a newsstand his uncle owned, soaking up the brilliant commentary from the most intelligent immigrant minds from around the world. Later he went through a very unconventional university program that had all-day seminars on wide-ranging topics held in someone's apartment or a local restaurant.
@@michaelsmith8665 Interesting. Many thanks for the detailed response!
I really like what Chomsky says in the end about how scientists should be cautious about claiming more than we know and about how much of evolutionary psychology are educated guesses. I'm a fan of Pinker, Cosmides, Tooby, etc. and think many people in that field are doing good work. But I also think since ev-psych has become popular there is a huge amount of work that really are just guesses and speculation. I used to think the phrase "just so story" was a strawman criticism but with a lot of the latest work in ev-psych I think it's valid.
"strawman criticism" should it not be called a strawperson criticism so as not to be sexist?.
Yes a lot of EP starts with guesses based on our understanding of evolution by natural selection but like any scientific field these guesses and hypotheses are subject to being tested. If the observational evidence fails to disprove the guess then we can take it seriously and pry further. All scientific theories in all fields of science start with an educated guess to explain an observation, I don't see how EP is alone in this.
I mean, it's easy to believe that. But have you taken the time to read actual articles? Sweeping generalisations are easy, checking to see if they're right is not.
For example, if you read through the classic text The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, his claims still stand, even though Stephen J Gould is regarded as being "More correct". Today, more and more tests are conducted, and the medical fields are SWAMPED with information using Evo-Psychology, neurology and such. There is so much information that upcoming doctors are now required to be able to sift through searches for the most likely explanation, instead of knowing everything, because that's just not possible anymore. It's too much to know.
Every science starts out from a theoretical framework used to generate hypotheses. The theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology is very clear: it’s applying the principles of evolution biology to humans. This has served evolutionary psychology very well, as they are able to generate hypotheses that keep being vindicated by the empirical studies. It is true that was a biologist who applied certain empirically derived principles to the topic of humans and what that could mean for what kind of society humans ought to strive for. This may make him an evolutionary thinker but the term evolutionary psychology is more narrowly defined, as being based on the principles of Darwinian selection. This seems more apt as humans is a species who reproduce sexually and aren’t the hive creatures that Kropotkin was most interested in. This doesn’t mean that what Kropotkin said wasn’t interesting or useful, and his legacy has in some ways been carried forward by those evolutionary psychologists who study populations and group selection, e.g. David Sloan Wilson.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 "The theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology is very clear: it’s applying the principles of evolution biology to humans" I agree with that, but the people that I most respect in the field don't constrain themselves to only evolutionary theory. I think that is absurd. Just as it was absurd to think that stimulus response theory could explain everything about human psychology. The people I respect the most such as Scot Atran, Chomsky, David Premak, and others don't confine themselves to only evolutionary theory but use whatever research is relevant to the problem they are studying. I actually think people who do primarily focus on only the evolutionary aspects like Cosmides and Tooby would even agree with that although of course I have no way of knowing.
"This has served evolutionary psychology very well, as they are able to generate hypotheses that keep being vindicated by the empirical studies." I think that is debatable actually. I'm not saying there aren't good examples of evolutionary psychology where theories have been validated by experiments. There clearly are such as the work of Cosmides and Tooby. But a lot of the discipline are also hypotheses that are difficult or impossible to test with current technology. That's not a knock against ev-psych, I think it's true for any theory of psychology.
Also, there is a lot of BS written by people who barely understand evolution but sells because it is presented as evolutionary psychology. One book I remember seeing recently was a book that claimed the stock market could be explained by evolutionary principles. It was nothing but baseless speculation and gibberish. That book wasn't really serious science but there is some work that is presented as serious that falls in that category as well. The work of Haidt on morality for example. If you read his work it is clear he doesn't understand the issues of group selection or some of the literature on the evolutionary hypotheses for taboos such as incest.
You mention the work of David Sloan Wilson. I read his book Unto Others and don't recall any examples where he did experiments that supported his theory. He does talk about experimental results but (at least from what I remember) everything he says, like a lot of psychology, is post-hoc rather than first stating his hypothesis and then doing specific experiments that would support that hypothesis over alternatives. Again, I'm not saying that invalidates his work. A lot of psychology is that way and IMO psychology is such an immature science we need well informed speculation as a starting point for good experiments.
Love that. Scientists have a responsibility to admit what they don't know. What they know of human nature is paper thin compared to other sciences.
I'm a professor of Psychology and I totally agree.
Yes, I am a theist , I agree and often point out what scientists doesn't know, then get criticized for it.
Humanity (our human nature, in my lingo), is a terminal autoimmune disease. I'm a Hobbesian on that score: “The life of man” in the state of nature, Hobbes famously writes, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In the state of nature, security is impossible for anyone, and the fear of death dominates every aspect of life. Being rational, humans will naturally seek to be rid of fear--I'm certain that humans are more emotional than rational, however.
Eminently sensible comments. We can assume a human nature because every species has a nature, but never exhaust it by necessarily narrow definition. No analysis, even of a recognized work of art, is ever equivalent to the art itself, and that is inanimate. "Nature" is an allegorical word in its best sense. It is useful in a practical way for narrow analyses, the nature of a chair, a shoe, etc., but never broad, as in the world, the universe, the mind. One serious problem with society has been the insistence on defining or assessing the "nature" of women, and some are still clinging to this useless and destructive way of thinking, Women will do what they will do and that is a function of opportunities, education and self-knowledge. What evolutionary psychologists may think of that, be damned.
I know it’s been 4 years but I love how you worded this and I’d like to acquire more wisdom with this . Please recommend me some books and authors
@@harmonious_dawn
Thank you most sincerely. I don't know what books I could recommend: it is simple logic: a definition is like a road map- certainly useful, but it isn't a road, and even then it can be in error and lead to all kinds of trouble. All entities with a mind and feeling are mysteries, as is the universe itself. Women have been defined as functions by men since "civilization," and that is because women are hard, impossible really, to control: brutal, insensitive laws and actions will control behaviour, but not thoughts. And some men feel threatened by that simple fact. I am a vegetarian and many of my regrets are that I once assumed animals are made for our use. What arrogance! What stupid arrogance!!! Perhaps we will evolve to become truly human - which entails awareness of and respect for the dignity and beauty of all life.
@@doriswrencheisler4386 so does this mean woman’s nature of being is similar to that of a man but women were conditioned to suppress it? Women are just as aggressive wild & domineering ?
What a brilliant 5 minutes.
Socrates of his time. Never ceases to impress. He sets the bar very high. To meet him for most would be like Democritus meeting Socrates. Albeit of course that Democritus was a very gifted mind.
Amun- Xoltol nope. He’s an egotistical, sneering intellectual that is so busy pointing out the bias of others thar he doesn’t check his own
@@davidiancrux Sneering? LOL . . . check your own bias.
The whole interview, please.
We know plenty about the rocks and clouds but can barely grasp the valleys of the mind
Thank You Mr. Chomsky for your enlightening comments!
Noam Chomsky, Artificial Intelligence Hall of Fame
*Unauthorized remote access* is the path of least resistance. Simple biology.
The world looks very different to you when you’re scientifically literate.
*Unauthorized remote access* is the least path of resistance. That’s probably why I’ve never found it to be interesting.
It’s just not interesting. People who fancy themselves clever with *unauthorized remote access* are mistaken. They’re not interesting either.
Human nature
Liberals view human nature as a set of innate qualities intrinsic to the individual, placing little or no emphasis on social or historical conditioning. Humans are self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures; but they are also governed by reason and are capable of personal development, particularly through education.
Conservatives believe that human beings are essentially limited and security-seeking creatures, drawn to the known, the familiar, the tried and tested. Human rationality is unreliable, and moral corruption is implicit in each human individual. The new right nevertheless embraces a form of self-seeking individualism. ’
Socialists regard humans as essentially social creatures, their capacities and behaviour being shaped more by nurture than by nature, and particularly by creative labour. Their propensity for cooperation, sociability and rationality means that the prospects for human development and personal growth are considerable.“
Anarchists view human nature in highly optimistic terms. Humans are either seen to have a powerful inclination towards sociable, gregarious and cooperative behaviour, being capable of maintaining order through collective effort alone, or to be basically self-interested but rationally enlightened.
Fascists believe that humans are ruled by the will and other non-rational drives, most particularly by a deep sense of social belonging focused on nation or race. Although the masses are fitted only to serve and obey, elite members of the national community are capable of personal regeneration as ‘new men’ through dedication to the national or racial cause.
Feminists usually hold that men and women share a common human
nature, gender differences being culturally or socially imposed. Separatist feminists nevertheless argue that men are genetically disposed to domination and cruelty, while women are naturally sympathetic, creative and peaceful.
Ecologists, particularly deep ecologists, see human nature as part of the broader ecosystem, even as part of nature itself. Materialism, greed and egoism therefore re?ect the extent to which humans have become alienated from the oneness of life and thus from their own true nature.Human fulfilment requires a return to nature.
political ideologies an introduction pg77 3rd edition 2003 Andrew Heywood
We have been told over and over that "you can't change human nature", but the study of emic realities shows quite the contrary, that almost anything can become "human nature" if society defines it as such.
Robert Anton Wilson.
One thing that is important to remember is that everything humans does, is essentially human nature and that is EVERYTHING. One can not just cherrypick and call it natural and unnatural. We're very complex and it's not the same as analyzing the lion or the giraffe. We can, however, narrow it down to find certain aspects where all homo sapiens are the same, like eating, drinking, speaking, listening, imagining, dreaming, survival instinct, and stories... we're a species that is very fond of stories such as religion, money, nations, corporations and so forth.
@@Danskadreng
There was a time when i understood this question to be very important and concluded that the many sides invested were trying to freeze the dialectic and make the definitive claim as to the fixed nature of the geological fundament/unconscious/will etc. It seemed implicit and immanent in every political squabble and nothing it seems has changed.It seems every year another turgid piece of social science or science turns over the previous prevailing view and so on in the nightmarish post-modern(please forgive)perspective.In all disciplines when the questions become smaller,the answers become greyer and some genius will point out a contradiction or antinomy...which is why i find myself more inclined to literature again.Perhaps its because it will save me having to assiduously read the clunky and strained prose of the sciences and applied(sic) sciences or perhaps its because i love a great story.Then again,looking inwards,i never felt the drive to undermine,push around,bully or make feel small,anybody else and by that metric under this ideology,i`m a total failure,natures outlaw..and that feels good.
Nature vs nurture. Competition vs cooperation. Darwin and Kropotkin. Both...
Humans have a nature but it is not entirely fixed by genetics - it is also molded by environment. That is what makes its limitations so complicated to understand.
Human Nature is trying to define an experience in two words.
Trying to pint-point and define an existence in a constantly changing environment.
Inputs and outputs.
0:20 (To answer this dude) People have to have choices, the option to choose which system they want. New Yorkers want to be Capitalists, so be it! New Jerseys wants to be Socialists, fine too.
You would learn that NO poor people would live in Capitalist countries if there were any Socialist Countries or Cities in the World.
Trouble is, when there is one Socialist System in place the USA makes sure it is destroyed in order to prevent the example of success to be followed, is there any other reason the US spend so much time, money and effort with its EMBARGO on CUBA if Socialism was such a self defeating proposition.
what is this from?
From MRS. Chomsky, of course.
Human nature exists, some traits are more common and those traits differ between major populations and also between the sexes.
what was the example for humans being partially plastic?... was not clear
He means plastic as in molded or created somehow. Humans have some malleable characteristics.
"plastic" in this context, means not fixed, changeable or malleable
It means-- by "plastic" ---that humans could embody their nature by "thought", and since simply the mind is not part of human nature; the mind as multi-copies within the framework of thought mechanism that is merely computational applied against human nature that is merely biology that could be nothing but, compared to the thought mechanism that can have different forms in representation, like for example, there are "many languages," a single x is human nature that, say, you could have millions of copies of the same human organism represented in number but you could not have this many millions to have many forms represented in bio-natural organs, for example, for many natural copies of the human organism the heart, as an organ millions of people have it, is studied one form.
The example he provided was that he doesn't speak Swahili.
Very nice comments! Basically honest! 👌
Philosophers also have a responsibility to admit what they don't know. There is more that we do not know about human nature than what we do know. Much of what thought we knew turned out to be wrong. It is not what we do know that is the problem it was what we do not know! God "may" know but that doesn't do us any good.
Has anyone read the Kropotkin book he mentions? I've heard it referenced often. I've never read it because it seems fairly dated and I'm guessing much of the evolutionary discussion is superseded by what's called Neodarwinism or the new synthesis, but I hear Kropotkin's book mentioned so often I'm wondering if it's worth a look.
It’s less about evolution of species in general and more about human progression as a society through the lense of cooperation. I didn’t think it dated in the slightest
Mutual Aid is not dated at all, I suggest you give it a read.
It's not "dated" whatsoever; in fact it's still ahead of its time, having predicted many of the things we currently know about coevolution.
Respects
Human nature is that human nature is programmable.
Crap in crap out.
GRiMHOLD semi programable
I think you nailed it!
Wrong. This is called "blank slate theory".
@@VIAl1 Exactly.
A deceptively simple statement that actually holds quite a bit.
If existence is nature, is anything unnatural?
No…, the answer is no.
Missing the subject matter of the discussion entirely.
Exposed himself as a tyrant in the end .
People are good---unless they get too much power.
Even a psychopath who was born with damaged amygdala and raised in the poor family?
37Dionysos: the meme: "People are good", by which you imply that people are kind, is wishful thinking, The Statement: Some people are kind, is certainly true. However, if you mean: Humans are good (at genocide), Humans are good (at lying), Humans are good (at cruelty), these statements do correlate with an honest appraisal of human history fairly well.
Your opinion is not supported by either the numbers (evil-doers are the vast minority) or the whole human narrative, which is the mostly-cooperative CONTEXT against which so much evil happens. Otherwise, A) we likely wouldn't be here, and B) we wouldn't be so traumatized when evil breaks human norms. This mega-reality is easy to miss, and we have mostly-fake "education," media and cynical careerists (Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker etc.) to "help" us miss it while they cash in. Thanks to them we don't even know that the longest period of Western history (the first, in Minoan Crete) was quite progressive and peaceful. Very bad example in front of the slaves!
"Your opinion is not supported by either the numbers"
Actually there are numerous neuroscientific studies that support that claim :)
" (evil-doers are the vast minority) or the whole human narrative"
Dishonesty detected :) don't play with words like that :)
What % of humanity lies?
How about cheats?
Humans do bad things all the time however that doesn't mean kill or rape. Last time I cheked lying, cheating, stealing are also bad things.
Also genius we the homo sapiens have wiped out other humanoids so much for the noble savage egalitarian.
You simply cannot "prove" a subjective, judgment-laden adjective ("evil"). You are ignoring the clear implication of your own percentages. Any "percent" is a PORTION of the whole, and it's the whole that supports my case.
So basically evolutionary psychology should not be used to explain human nature?
It can be, but it will be far from a comprehensive answer.