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

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, I can respect what you're saying about your views, but I still have to say that there seems to be something weird going on when it comes to the issue of homosexuality here based on what you've said earlier. A statement of your position, which is what you said in your first post, is not the same thing as an argument. That's what develops over time and as a result of responding to the posts of others, and we did get some very strange things that way.

The first post where things began to get odd:

Why is homosexuality being equated with cancer?

It isn't, and this is not the first time that I have been misrepresented/misquoted in this thread. They are not being "equated" any more than I am "equating" Gordon Brown and James Randi by saying both of them are male humans. They are similar in that they are both examples of biological processes going wrong, thus differing from biological processes doing what they are supposed to do. It does not follow from this that everything or even anything else about them is the same.

Why contrast homosexuality with a "normal" sexual drive?

Because sex evolved as a means of producing young and homosexual relationships do not and cannot produce young.

Why say that it's gone "wrong"?

Because there is no offpsring.

Why use pejorative terms if you're only trying to make a neutral point about reproduction here?

"Pejorative" is your interpretation of what I am saying. "Wrong" is being used in the strict sense of a biological process. It has nothing to do with what is ethically acceptable or societally desirable.

What I am seeing now looks like a politically-correct over-reaction. I am describing homosexuality as a form of biological abnormality. I do not believe this is actually as controversial a claim as people are making it out to be. There are all sorts of other biological abnormalities which people would be perfectly happy to accept as abnormalities, it's just that this particular abnormality has a long history of causing socio-political controversy because religious and otherwise irrational hatred and persecution of homosexuals. I think you are reading into my posts something more than a claim of biological abnormality - that you believe that underlying this claim is a motive that is similar to that of the aforementioned homophobes. This motive doesn't actually exist.

The same problem tends to occur whenever somebody mentions that there actually is a significant genetic difference between the population of sub-saharan Africa and the rest of the world. Certain people see that claim and immediately assume that they are talking to a racist. I think political-correctness is often as irrational as the forces it is reacting against. Why have I brought this up? Is it because I'm secretly a racist? No, it is because I don't like it when irrational forces try to silence scientific reality. I don't care whether those irrational forces are the religious and political right wing or politically-correct, left-wing humanists. The human genome project showed that there was a significant genetic difference between these two broad groups of humans (the sub-saharan Africans have about four times as much genetic diversity as the rest of the human race put together) but nobody is actually allowed to talk about it because of fear that the information will be picked up on by genuinely racist people and used as ammunition in their political agenda. It is also the case that people nearly always assume that if you claim there is a genetic difference here that you must, of course, be claiming that the Africans are "inferior", even though this has been neither stated nor implied, and though from a strictly scientific point of view, genetic diversity is usually considered to be desirable (the opposite being "in-bred"). As soon as socio-politics and human emotions enter the picture, science goes out the window.

Your argument seems to be that I wouldn't even mention these things if it wasn't the result of some sort of underlying homophobic or racist tendency - that I ought to conform to the conspiracy of silence for fear of encouraging the people who really are homophobic or racist. Sorry, but if somebody tries to tell me I can't talk about some awkward truth my response has always been to shout a little louder about it.

There is a very distinct tone of judgment here. Otherwise, why ask a question like “where do you draw the line”?

Because you are the one who is claiming that there are some things clearly over the line (beastiality) and some things which clearly aren't (homosexuality). Sorry, but I just do not see where you are drawing the line between "normal" and "perverse". I have made it quite clear where I draw it because I defined it in terms of biology. You can't do that, because you've already gone beyond the place where the biological line could be drawn.

But it isn't the main issue. Becoming sexually obsessed with a car is a sexual fetish. (So are bestiality, S/M, and necrophilia, for that matter.

So why are those things "fetishes" and homosexuality not a fetish? I don't understand how you are drawing the distinction.

Why not talk about shoe fetishes?)But being homosexual or transgendered is an orientation.

Is paedophilia an orientation?

Transgendered people were a particularly bad example to bring up, because they're usually heterosexual, and there may be nothing different about their sexual preference or behavior from that of any other heterosexual person.

They were a particularly good example to bring up, since the topic of discussion was "biological processes going wrong." I repeat the question: has something "gone wrong" in this case?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And you know this how? I've seen male dogs hump each other. I presumed that they were getting some benefit from it.

I used to breed guinea-pigs. The young males humped each other all the time. I'm not sure I even class this as homosexuality - more a case of them being pumped up with testosterone and ready to hump just about anything that moves into their field of vision and is roughly the size and shape of a female guinea-pig. Have you ever seen somebody taking sperm from a breeding boar (pig)? They basically put a contraption in front of it that looks to me like some machine from a gym, but it looks similar enough to a female pig to get the job done. Does this mean the male pig is sexually attracted to machine-like contraptions? No, it's just randy as hell and will hump just about anything. When we are talking about homosexuality in humans we are normally talking about a situation where there are members of the opposite sex available. It is a premeditated, deliberate choice as opposed to just "hump anything if there's no females about." There is one situation where there are no females about - in prisons. There is an odd attitude to homosexuality in male prisons: it is often not considered homosexual if you are the male doing the penetrating. It's only homosexual if you choose to be on the recieving end.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Humans own this planet for a reason

Humans do NOT own this planet. We just think we do. "Wise Man"? Not wise enough.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yet, if they exist after numerous generations, there is a reason they haven't been evolved out.

Why hasn't Cystic Fibrosis been "evolved out"?

 

[Maia]

Do we really have to go through this?

Homosexuality is a biological orientation. I don't draw the distinction. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization have decided to draw that distinction. In addition, the:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of SocialWorkers
National Education Association

and the
School Social Work Association of America

publish a regularly updated informational booklet, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation, which outlines the reasons why "reparation therapy" and all attempts to change sexual orientation are complete and utter failures. (The only logical reason for such failures is that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is biologically determined.) I'm not even going to get into all the research supporting that assertion, because I've done enough work already-- go and look it up yourself.

In addition, here's the American Psychological Association's 1994 statement on homosexuality:

"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."

I don't know what British medical and psychiatric associations have adopted as a specific position, but it seems very hard to believe that it's radically different from all of this.

Everyone has the right to whatever opinion they want to hold about any subject, but let's all be honest about whatever it is.

 

[Hux]

We all know this. Its just balmy to think its gone 'wrong' in any way, shape or form. But you will not convince him so why bother. One just ends up repeating oneself.

If he has a son and he tells him he is gay, I wonder how he will view 'evolutionary strategy' then?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We all know this. Its just balmy to think its gone 'wrong' in any way, shape or form. But you will not convince him so why bother. One just ends up repeating oneself.

If he has a son and he tells him he is gay, I wonder how he will view 'evolutionary strategy' then?

Exactly the same as I do now, I should think. Please bear in mind that I consider it bordering on immoral to have children at all, given the current outlook for humanity. The human race is currently in conflict with its environment precisely because our strategy has been too successful. We are facing the prospect of having to redefine what we consider "success" to be - specifically that we have to consider sustainability the goal rather than growth (both in terms of economics and population).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Do we really have to go through this?

Yes.

Homosexuality is a biological orientation. I don't draw the distinction. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization have decided to draw that distinction. In addition, the:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of SocialWorkers
National Education Association

and the
School Social Work Association of America

publish a regularly updated informational booklet, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation, which outlines the reasons why "reparation therapy" and all attempts to change sexual orientation are complete and utter failures. (The only logical reason for such failures is that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is biologically determined.) I'm not even going to get into all the research supporting that assertion, because I've done enough work already-- go and look it up yourself.

Sorry Maia, but you haven't actually answered my question. All you have done is supply half of an argument from authority - or rather you've supplied the authorities but not the argument.

In addition, here's the American Psychological Association's 1994 statement on homosexuality:

"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."

Which totally fails to answer the question: what is the difference between "a sexual orientation" and a "perversion"? Is paedophilia a sexual orientation?

Is there something wrong with these questions?

Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex instead of the opposite sex.
Paedophiles are attracted to children instead of adults.
Both are apparently rather common.
What possible justification could you have for describing one of these things as a (somehow valid/good) "orientation" and one of them as something else?
Clearly there is a difference in terms of the possible damage caused by acting on the impulse, but in terms of the impulse itself I see no reason to classify one these things as an "orientation" and the other as something else. In both cases it is the normal sex drive which has become attached to an inappropriate target. The only difference I can see here about the impulse (rather than acting on it) is that homosexuality has become (largely) socially acceptable and paedophilia has not (for obvious reasons). I am not interested in social, ethical and political difference between these two things. I want to know what the BIOLOGICAL difference is. There isn't one, Maia. Either they are both "orientations" or neither of them are. Neither can be "cured", and nor can any other sexual preference AFAIK.

ETA: How long will it takes before somebody misquotes the above post as saying "homosexuality and paedophilia are equal"? About five minutes, probably. You people need to get your socio-politics disentangled from your science. Homosexuality and paedophilia differ because there are far more serious potential problems caused by the latter group acting on their urges - which is why there are laws to deal with that situation. But if you look at them from a strictly behavioural or scientific viewpoint, both are just examples of the human sex drive getting attached to the wrong target. I believe that anyone who actually claims that somehow homosexuality is completely normal and "good" but that paedophilia is totally abnormal and "bad" are not actually thinking rationally about what they are saying. Apart from the ethical, legal aspects mentioned above, I cannot see any rational reason to consider these one of these as "normal" and the other as "abnormal". I can accept people claiming both are abnormal or both are normal but not drawing an arbitrary distinction based entirely on an emotional reaction which is no different to historical emotional reaction to homosexuality. And make no mistake - it is the same reaction. People are revolted by paedophiles not only (in fact probably not even normally) because of what they actually do, but because of the very idea that they even have the urge to do it. They are weirdos - not normal people - not like us - they have desires that "normal" people couldn't possibly understand and don't even want to think about. This is EXACTLY how many societies have always treated homosexuals. It is exactly the same reaction, and it is a reaction which is also produced by all manner of other "sexual orientations" including beastiality and necrophilia.

 

[Hokulele]

What possible justification could you have for describing one of these things as a (somehow valid/good) "orientation" and one of them as something else?

One involves a lack of informed consent on behalf of the partner.

 

[RandFan]

That's an example of a biological process working exactly how natural selection normally works. It is a highly effective means of making sure the optimum number of fit offspring survive. It "works" genetically.

Yes, and gays and lesbains could be an effective means of ensuring the survival of the human species. You can't pick a behavior and declare it "wrong" because it seems to be at odds with reproduction.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

One involves a lack of informed consent on behalf of the partner.

OK, I will explain this as many times as necessary.

ALREADY POSTED IN THE PREVIOUS POST:

Clearly there is a difference in terms of the possible damage caused by acting on the impulse, but in terms of the impulse itself I see no reason to classify one these things as an "orientation" and the other as something else. In both cases it is the normal sex drive which has become attached to an inappropriate target. The only difference I can see here about the impulse (rather than acting on it) is that homosexuality has become (largely) socially acceptable and paedophilia has not (for obvious reasons). I am not interested in social, ethical and political difference between these two things. I want to know what the BIOLOGICAL difference is.

Is there something about that paragraph which is hard to understand?

Yes, obviously, there is an issue about lack of consent or the lack of possibility of consent. Let us assume, for the purposes of this debate, that we are talking about a comparison between an inactive homosexual and an inactive paedophile. Let's say it was 100 years ago and that they are brothers. Both are married with families and hide their "true condition". Now...what is the difference between them?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, and gays and lesbains could be an effective means of ensuring the survival of the human species.

Yes, you are about the fifth person to make this claim. It's a theory which is supported by precisely no evidence at all. It is entirely politically-motivated (i.e. it is "pseudoscience.") You are trying to find a way to justify the claim that "homosexuality is normal", not trying to provide the answer to a genuine question about human reproductive strategies.

You can't pick a behavior and declare it "wrong" because it seems to be at odds with reproduction.

I can if I am an evolutionary biologist.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

I am not reading UCE at the moment maybe in a week or two, yet I am in total agreement with you.

There is a high drive to engage in sexual activity, there are I believe even stronger mechanisms of attraction and bonding.

But I am in agreement with you, there is no 'wrong', the drive to enjoy sex (mainly operant conditioning) is functionsing correctly, the mechanismms of attraction and bonding are working correctly.

There is nothing 'wrong', there is rather a target of the systems that is not the social norm.

But after you see female dogs humping male dogs you just have to wonder about the whole right and wrong thing.

 

[Dancing David]

I ama mazed to see that the same falalcies in the understanding of evolutions are still being spouted by some people.

A single member that does not reproduce, is not a failure in reporductive succes, if it invests its energy in the survival of others related to it. So a two month old bird that helps to rear its younger siblings and then is killed over the winter has some reproductive success if its siblings survive.

Pastalmighty, social inserct have members of the colony that NEVER reproduce yet the contribute to reproductive success.

And again sex and sexual behavior in human may have a very high bonding potential aside from reproduction, bonding increases survival chances which increases reproductive chances.

I am amazed that twenty years plus after Gould and others began to explain the theory of evolution through reproductive success that people are still obsessed with determinstic explainations of the TOETRS.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, you are about the fifth person to make this claim. It's a theory which is supported by precisely no evidence at all. It is entirely politically-motivated (i.e. it is "pseudoscience.") You are trying to find a way to justify the claim that "homosexuality is normal", not trying to provide the answer to a genuine question about human reproductive strategies.

I'm not trying to find a way to justify anything. When we find behavior in any species and that behavior is persistent and the species is succesful then there is good reason to believe that the behavior favors the species. At best you could argue that it is neutral or begnin.

I can if I am an evolutionary biologist.

Not a very good evolutionary biologist.

 

[RandFan]

There is a high drive to engage in sexual activity, there are I believe even stronger mechanisms of attraction and bonding.

But I am in agreement with you, there is no 'wrong', the drive to enjoy sex (mainly operant conditioning) is functionsing correctly, the mechanismms of attraction and bonding are working correctly.

There is nothing 'wrong', there is rather a target of the systems that is not the social norm.

I never got the "wrong" bit. Is anything a priori "wrong"? We thought for a long time that cicle cell anemia was simply a pathology. Now we we know that it provides protection for maleria. Is everything that we might percieve as "wrong", wrong until we find proof of a positive basis for a species?

 

[!Kaggen]

Yes. concepts, ideas are thoughts.

Okay, well, that's an entirely abstract notion and quite disconnected from what happens in the brain, from the processes of thinking and consciousness, so I'm not sure if what you're saying even makes sense. I'll have to go back and re-read some of your posts in that light.

I think the difference in approaches may be that I am consciously describing the perception of cognition from the first person point of view. In other words an active perception as apposed to a passive perception. I am consciously avoiding stepping outside of my own thinking when "observing" thinking. No matter how much we might observe cognition in other persons we will only experience (participate in) cognition through ourselves and only through thinking. As much as we are not running by watch others run we are not thinking by watching others think. Cogito is certainly true to ourselves since we would need to think to deny it.

From this point of view staying within thinking, thoughts are "objects". I use hyphens to differentiate between objects which are not the result of our thinking and "objects" which are.

 

[Robin]

Which totally fails to answer the question: what is the difference between "a sexual orientation" and a "perversion"? Is paedophilia a sexual orientation?

Is there something wrong with these questions?

Nothing whatsoever.

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation - so is heterosexuality a perversion?

 

[Robin]

My argument:

(1) Human bodies and behaviour were either wholly or partly "designed" by evolutionary processes which themselves are driven by DNA trying to replicate itself.
(2) Therefore behaviours which are being driven by DNA but not resulting in the correct outcome should be viewed as processes which have gone wrong.
(3) Therefore any sort of sex which doesn't lead to succesful reproduction should be viewed as a process gone wrong.
(4) Therefore homosexuality can be viewed as a biological process which has gone wrong.

Invalid reasoning as it happens, and I have pointed out the flaw in it before.

The "correct" outcome, if it can be called that, is the passing on of genes. A successful reproduction does not guarantee this and can work against it.

For example in times of scarcity each successful reproduction results in another mouth to feed and less for the group. Successful reproduction could lead to a diminished viability for the entire group. (I thought you, of all people, would have understood this).

We have evidence that many primitive cultures practiced infanticide, probably for this reason.

So you see there are many cases where heterosexual activity by a fertile couple could be regarded as something gone wrong.

That is the reason it is silly to think of this stuff in terms or "right" and "wrong". Stuff happens - some stuff gets selected for, some stuff doesn't.

A significant proportion of our population are homosexuals and it seems that this has been the case for quite a long time - so it seems it didn't get selected against.

Therefore, even by your own argument, homosexuality is not a process gone wrong.

 

[Robin]

Exactly the same as I do now, I should think. Please bear in mind that I consider it bordering on immoral to have children at all, given the current outlook for humanity. The human race is currently in conflict with its environment precisely because our strategy has been too successful. We are facing the prospect of having to redefine what we consider "success" to be - specifically that we have to consider sustainability the goal rather than growth (both in terms of economics and population).

And yet you appear to be ruling out that this problem could ever have arisen for any group in our evolutionary history.