My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you know exactly what I meant.

Sorry, but I don't. I'm getting all sorts of weird reactions from people in this thread who appear to be reading all sorts of things into my posts which just aren't there. I've been accused of being a closet theist who secretly hates gays and I've been accused of setting up a "slippery slope" in order justify various sorts of sexual behaviour, some of which are illegal and immoral. If the same set of posts prompts accusations of both religious-minded moralising AND a total abscence of morality, you can be pretty sure that people are imposing their own preconceptions on to what I am actually saying (which never had anything to do with morality in the first place.)

 

[westprog]

It's not that simple. Some characteristics are not there because of selective advantage but because of random factors like genetic drift or side-effects of something else which had a selective advantage. Difficulty in childbirth in humans doesn't exist because of a selective advantage, but because there is a massive selective advantage in having big brains - an advantage that is powerful enough to over-ride a natural mortality rate during childbirth which is the highest in the animal world. Red hair has no selective advantage either.

I agree that many characteristics clearly have no advantage, and accrued in association with other things. It's possible that homosexuality falls into either category. However, it's quite easy to envisage scenarios where it might confer an evolutionary advantage. It might also be a by-product of humans evolving a high sex drive.

 

[Hux]

It might also be a by-product of humans evolving a high sex drive.

Right on the Button.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How shall I put this? You are just plain wrong.

Great argument!

No one is talking about morality but you clearly cannot judge between a normal human preference and downright perversity as you lump them all as not normal.

Some people clearly are talking about morality, and I have no idea how one would go about defining "downright perversity." "Not normal" is a large category. I never said there were no differences between different sorts of sexual deviancy - that really would be absurd.

Other than a religious and false premise, please tell me (and everyone else that cares about it) what it is you consider abnormal about Homosexuality?

I've answered that several times - it is a misfiring of a natural behaviour. It is an example of human sexuality latching on to the wrong target, where everything which isn't an adult member of the opposite sex is defined as a wrong target. I do not know why people have such a problem with this claim, but I can only assume that it is because they think I am making a moral judgement or a value judgement about homosexuality.

There are supernatural elements to the things you believe in now and that's Woo. What do these doctrines of Buddhism, Taoism etc have to say about Puffs?

No idea. Very little, probably.

For the record I was once like you. I thought homosexuality was wrong. I thought, if you allow this....you know the rest. But I convinced myself I had no basis moral or natural to consider that people were the way their nature made them. You still have not explained in what manner Homosexuality is something gone wrong.

Yes I have. And I didn't say "homosexuality is wrong." Again, my words are being misinterpreted and misquoted. I said it is the result of a biological process going wrong. Not quite the same.

 

[westprog]

Human babies have massive heads. Please don't lecture me about not knowing what I'm talking about.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Right on the Button.

In which case it is in the same category as obesity. We evolved a tendency to want to eat everything we can stuff down our throats because in our natural state we didn't always know where the next meal was coming from. This process has "gone wrong" in some modern humans.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

[qimg]http://www.worldzootoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ba-gorilla10_0499544484.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://primatology.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/baby-chimp.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://u2charistlincoln.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/newborn-baby-picture-photo.jpg[/qimg]

Human babies have large heads. You are here comparing with our two closest relatives, both of which also have relatively large heads at birth compared to other species, although not as large as humans. Also, as stated by somebody else, nature has tried to "fix" this problem by shortening the gestation period.

 

[Hux]

Yes I have. And I didn't say "homosexuality is wrong." Again, my words are being misinterpreted and misquoted. I said it is the result of a biological process going wrong. Not quite the same.

It is the same thing. it is you making a judgement call about a process 'gone wrong'. I don't know or care if you think Homosexuality is wrong in a moral sense because we can ignore you on that. What I do care about is how you make the judgement call that Homosexulaity is a biological process gone wrong? For what it is worth, I certainly have not read from any evolutionary biologist that has stated that. I have seen lots of religious blowhards state it is wrong on every level. What did I miss?

Crystal Palace? Have a word with yourself.

 

[westprog]

Right on the Button.

It might be. Or UE might be right. I don't think he is necessarily right.

However, human beings are quite unlike most other animals in that they regularly exhibit all different kinds of sexual behaviour when there is no prospect of reproduction. Homosexuality is comparatively rare compared to masturbation, say, or wet dreams, or intercourse with females who are infertile. Non-reproductive sexual behaviour is a fairly fundamental part of being human. It might be the central driving force that keeps humans in tight family groups which can grow into entire civilisations.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It is the same thing. it is you making a judgement call about a process 'gone wrong'. I don't know or care if you think Homosexuality is wrong in a moral sense because we can ignore you on that. What I do care about is how you make the judgement call that Homosexulaity is a biological process gone wrong? For what it is worth, I certainly have not read from any evolutionary biologist that has stated that. I have seen lots of religious blowhards state it is wrong on every level. What did I miss?

I can only repeat myself. Many biological processes are there for a reason. We desire to eat because we need sustainence, and sometimes this process goes wrong because of an essentially un-natural lifestyle (limitless food and almost no exercise, usually). We desire to have sex in order to procreate. It is not my fault that certain "religious blowhards" believe this means that any sort of sex which doesn't lead to procreation is wrong on every level. I have to remind you what started this argument: somebody claimed that homosexuality must have had an evolutionary advantage and somebody else claimed it was probably a form of group selection associated with passing on genes of relatives. My response was that it was simply a biological process which had gone wrong, that it confered no reproductive benefit and that it was a bad strategy from the POV of evolution. The whole discussion started when I claimed that the reason human beings exist is in order to produce more humans. That statement only makes sense in an entirely a-moral, biological way. It is a functional definition of the inherent reason a human exists. If you are looking at things in this non-religous, a-moral, biological way then homosexuality is the example of a natural process which has gone wrong: the primary purpose of sex is procreation. This is not religious moralising. It is biological fact.

Crystal Palace? Have a word with yourself.

I come from South London. At least I don't support Millwall.

 

[westprog]

Human babies have large heads. You are here comparing with our two closest relatives, both of which also have relatively large heads at birth compared to other species, although not as large as humans. Also, as stated by somebody else, nature has tried to "fix" this problem by shortening the gestation period.

Funny, I thought the (human) baby's head looked bigger.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hmmmm, I think I take it back

If our brains can be so easily fooled, then maybe we have over estimated consciousness

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Funny, I thought the (human) baby's head looked bigger.

It's actually quite hard to tell from those photos, but yes it does look bigger. I'm having trouble following who is on which side of the argument here...

 

[Hux]

I can only repeat myself.

By all means but I cant see it will make you any more correct.

Many biological processes are there for a reason.

Some exist because they confer no disadvantage and never did. We havent needed a caecum for hundreds of thousands of years but we still have them. They aren't doing any harm. Like, i think, redundant DNA?

We desire to eat because we need sustainence, and sometimes this process goes wrong because of an essentially un-natural lifestyle (limitless food and almost no exercise, usually).

The process is fine. Works well. If we choose to take a higher calorific intake that is our choice - not the sytem's fault. It is not 'wrong' in any sense but it is our actions and choices that cause us the problems - especially since we know where it comes from.

We desire to have sex in order to procreate.

That is true but big brained mammals do it for all sorts of reasons - many of them in the chimp world just to dominate, subjugate or be playful. We are playful. It never crosses our minds to reproduce every time we are driven to hump.

It is not my fault that certain "religious blowhards" believe this means that any sort of sex which doesn't lead to procreation is wrong on every level.

Never suggested it. I am saying it is only a religious opinion that considers homosexuality wrong in any aspect. But I'm not calling you a blowhard. You confessed you are not a Milwall supporter.

I have to remind you what started this argument: somebody claimed that homosexuality must have had an evolutionary advantage and somebody else claimed it was probably a form of group selection associated with passing on genes of relatives.

Nope you dont need to remind me. I state homosexuality has little evolutionary advantage but imposes no disadvantage; that's a different thing. If you dont reproduce you aint gonna pass on genes. Im not sure how living a life of blowjobs will confer anything to group selection.

My response was that it was simply a biological process which had gone wrong, that it confered no reproductive benefit and that it was a bad strategy from the POV of evolution.

Lets put it this way then. Since the entire animal kingdom appears to exhibit some form of homosexuality, what reasoning do you suggest this makes it 'wrong' in any sense? What do you measure 'right' against? We only have the animal kingdom to compare. In what sense can we say Homosexuality is a process gone wrong? Since the dawn of humanity we have attempted, in certain circumstances, including child euthanasia, to keep populations low. We use or try to use contraception and yet it has no reproductive benefit. Can we say that process is wrong? Homosexuality is not a strategy in terms of evolution. Evolution may be blind but it turns a blind eye to all that confers no danger or damage to the creature. This is why flies had to 'wait' for heat dissipating organs to turn to wings. They werent doing any harm, nor were they busy learning to be good wings. Homosexuality plainly evolved carrying no such penalty either. It's just the way it is. By what control group could you decide it was 'wrong'?

The whole discussion started when I claimed that the reason human beings exist is in order to produce more humans. That statement only makes sense in an entirely a-moral, biological way. It is a functional definition of the inherent reason a human exists.

Its the functional reason for all sexual life forms.

If you are looking at things in this non-religous, a-moral, biological way then homosexuality is the example of a natural process which has gone wrong: the primary purpose of sex is procreation. This is not religious moralising. It is biological fact.

It is a fact but it is clearly not the only fact. Millions of animals past and present have engaged in sexual acts that do not lead to procreation but that is irrelevant. If a homosexual is quite clearly capable of producing offspring (as they are since time was recorded) how do explain how a homosexual is wrong in any biological sense? Homosexuals produce children often by more ingenious methods than Heterosexuals. If they are following your biological imperative how can the process be construed as 'wrong'?

I come from South London. At least I don't support Millwall.

Thats it? thats your entire raison d'etre for being a crystal Place fan? "At least I dont support Millwall"?

I am not suggesting you are coming at this 'problem' from a religious or spiritual viewpoint. But I think the only reason one can view Homosexulaity as in any way 'wrong' is by dint of religious and archaic reasoning.

By your own criteria, Homosexuals are fecund. They follow the biological imperative - at least as much as those Hetero's who choose not to have children - so by your own criteria, it cannot be something that went wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

For ten years (he's dead now) my best friend was homosexual. I associate with numerous homosexuals in my own city. I even rented out a room in my house to a homosexual.

Sorry about your friend.

I said exactly what "right" means in this case. "Right" means "the system is doing what it is supposed to do - what it evolved to do."

Perhaps.

But I find it more than coincidental that you arbitrarily label one type of fitness as "right" and refuse to even acknowledge that other types of fitness even exist, let alone might also be "right."

Westprog is correct (I hate to admit this) -- if there is a behavior present in an evolved organism, that behavior will either 1) confer some kind of selective advantage, 2) be linked to another behavior that confers a selective advantage, or 3) be entirely neutral with regards to selective fitness.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection. Reproduction is merely one aspect of the process, and isn't necessarily even the most important. What is important is survival of the information used to instantiate the system. In biological terms that means survival of the geneset.

And you yourself spoke about this, without seeing the forest through the trees -- you hypothesize that homosexuality is simply an overflow valve so organisms can maintain high sex drives without overpopulation or killing each other. Don't you see that such a behavior is also an evolved solution, and thus is just as "right" as procreation itself? If a geneset happens to include such a feature, and certain individuals happen to express that feature, how on Earth can they be "wrong?"

 

[rocketdodger]

The whole discussion started when I claimed that the reason human beings exist is in order to produce more humans.

But this is wrong.

The reason humans exist is that our geneset's have survived. Period.

You need to learn that reproduction is a necessary but not sufficient component to the solution of the problem of geneset survival.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Lets put it this way then. Since the entire animal kingdom appears to exhibit some form of homosexuality, what reasoning do you suggest this makes it 'wrong' in any sense? What do you measure 'right' against? We only have the animal kingdom to compare. In what sense can we say Homosexuality is a process gone wrong?

It is wrong in the functional sense that follows from the original claim that the reason that human beings exist is in order to allow human DNA to replicate. It's a Dawkinsian view - the idea being that the primary organism is the DNA itself and the human form simply being a means for those genes to replicate themselves. If you look at it this way then homosexuality is an example of evolved behaviour that is not functioning correctly. Human sexuality is partly about bonding rather than procreation - but the bonding (falling in love) is itself evolutionarily-beneficial because it keeps sexual partners together long enough to raise an infant into childhood. It then generally wears off...

Since the dawn of humanity we have attempted, in certain circumstances, including child euthanasia, to keep populations low. We use or try to use contraception and yet it has no reproductive benefit. Can we say that process is wrong?

No, but in this case you aren't talking about instinctive, evolved behaviour but something quite different: the intentional, wilful overcoming of instinctive, evolved behaviour. This is a very special sort of behaviour, probably unique to our species, and any discussion of the reasons behind it is likely to be complicated.

Homosexuality is not a strategy in terms of evolution. Evolution may be blind but it turns a blind eye to all that confers no danger or damage to the creature. This is why flies had to 'wait' for heat dissipating organs to turn to wings. They werent doing any harm, nor were they busy learning to be good wings. Homosexuality plainly evolved carrying no such penalty either. It's just the way it is. By what control group could you decide it was 'wrong'?

It is wrong because, from the POV of the selfish gene, the genes are producing behaviour which is not the behaviour they are supposed to produce and does not have the correct end product.

It is a fact but it is clearly not the only fact. Millions of animals past and present have engaged in sexual acts that do not lead to procreation but that is irrelevant. If a homosexual is quite clearly capable of producing offspring (as they are since time was recorded) how do explain how a homosexual is wrong in any biological sense?

Because he does not actually suceed in producing offspring. Evolutionary "fitness" is the ability to raise offspring which are themselves capable of succesfully raising offspring. That is the benchmark. No offspring or offspring with shared genes = evolutionary failure.

Thats it? thats your entire raison d'etre for being a crystal Place fan? "At least I dont support Millwall"?

Do I have to have a reason to be a Crystal Palace supporter?

I am not suggesting you are coming at this 'problem' from a religious or spiritual viewpoint. But I think the only reason one can view Homosexulaity as in any way 'wrong' is by dint of religious and archaic reasoning.

Well, there's at least another reason and I keep telling you it: it's "wrong" in the sense of reproductive fitness. The genes are producing the "wrong" behaviour from their point of view. This is the exact opposite of a religiously-motivated view, which views it as "wrong" because it explicitly views humans in terms of their biology and completely ignores any spiritual or ethical aspect to the issue. You can't get much less religious than viewing humans as nothing more than hunks of flesh and bone whose sole purpose is to reproduce human DNA.

By your own criteria, Homosexuals are fecund. They follow the biological imperative - at least as much as those Hetero's who choose not to have children - so by your own criteria, it cannot be something that went wrong.

That doesn't follow. You have said yourself that they have to get "creative" in order to actually succeed in reproducing. This is their way of trying to put right what has gone wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry about your friend.

It was a long time ago, but shocking at the time. He committed suicide aged 20. He lived with his parents, but more as a lodger than a son. He was an only child and his parents were politically conservative and refused to accept his homosexuality. They only openly talked to me about it after he died, almost like they wanted to get to know the son they had psychologically and emotionally lost long before they physically lost him. He was the President of Croydon Area Gay Youth, and at his funeral, respectfully distant from the grave, standing in a straight line, each dressed impeccably, were about thirty young men.

Perhaps.

But I find it more than coincidental that you arbitrarily label one type of fitness as "right" and refuse to even acknowledge that other types of fitness even exist, let alone might also be "right."

In terms of a Dawkinsian view of evolution, there is only one type of fitness and that is reproductive fitness.

Westprog is correct (I hate to admit this) -- if there is a behavior present in an evolved organism, that behavior will either 1) confer some kind of selective advantage, 2) be linked to another behavior that confers a selective advantage, or 3) be entirely neutral with regards to selective fitness.

Failing to reproduce must be negative with respect to evolutionary fitness.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection. Reproduction is merely one aspect of the process, and isn't necessarily even the most important. What is important is survival of the information used to instantiate the system. In biological terms that means survival of the geneset.

This is the group selection argument I originally disputed. For this argument to work, there would need to be a clear connection between homosexuality and the raising of siblings' children. That connection is not clear and may not even exist.

And you yourself spoke about this, without seeing the forest through the trees -- you hypothesize that homosexuality is simply an overflow valve so organisms can maintain high sex drives without overpopulation or killing each other.

I didn't say that. Somebody-else may have.

Don't you see that such a behavior is also an evolved solution, and thus is just as "right" as procreation itself? If a geneset happens to include such a feature, and certain individuals happen to express that feature, how on Earth can they be "wrong?"

Not all "features" are genetically-desirable.

 

[Maia]

UE's entire argument about reproductive fitness may all sound very good and well, but it is a little hard to avoid the hypothesis that there's a real aspect of smoke and mirrors thrown up to keep us from remembering that he equated homosexuality with necrophilia. Stop and think for a second. If all that somebody wants to do is to make a rational argument about genes and DNA, then what possible reason could they have to make a comparison like that in the first place? Why start from that point? And as for the "some of my best friends are x..." argument-- I'm not saying that you didn't really care about the person you mentioned. But I live in the South, which means you can't fool me with that line. Southerners invented it in the first place. Maybe it works better on people from England.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

UE's entire argument about reproductive fitness may all sound very good and well, but it is a little hard to avoid the hypothesis that there's a real aspect of smoke and mirrors thrown up to keep us from remembering that he equated homosexuality with necrophilia.

I equated them only in the sense that both are sexual behaviour which is "wrong" from the point of view of biological process. I did not say they were the same in all ways.

Stop and think for a second. If all that somebody wants to do is to make a rational argument about genes and DNA, then what possible reason could they have to make a comparison like that in the first place? Why start from that point?

I didn't start from that point. It was in the middle of the argument.

There is no hidden agenda here. All of my comments follow from the original claim that humans could be viewed as having an inherent purpose to reproduce.

And as for the "some of my best friends are x..." argument-- I'm not saying that you didn't really care about the person you mentioned. But I live in the South, which means you can't fool me with that line. Southerners invented it in the first place. Maybe it works better on people from England.

It just happens to be a true story, and one of the most character-forming experiences of my life. I was the first person who this person came out to. He was my best mate at school and we were both 15 at the time. His homosexuality never bothered me. The character-forming experience was about the devastating impact of suicide on the family and friends of the person who commits suicide. I have often had suicidal thoughts myself, but any idea of actually acting on them is prevented by first-hand knowledge of the consequences of that act for other people.