How 'natural' is democracy?

sprinkles said:
I think given time humans would evolve beyond morals and philosophy, and these will become antiquated. If we live that long.

You are correct in that as long as humans can make bad choices, we can come to a consensus that would have dire implications. What I'm saying though is that the ability to make bad choices in itself can disappear. This is because natural laws do not make mistakes. There is no good or bad in them. If we can achieve harmony with natural law, there will be no bad choices.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I have considered the idea that humanity would become a sort of super organism with government as the brain, industry as the organs and roads being the viens. We already have shown signs in that direction.

http://thehobbesian.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/humanity-as-a-super-organism/

The are other coorelations such as crime being a cancer and police and military being the immune system.

How much more is there to go?
 
Jacobi said:
What is your definition of natural law. Right now humans are as much in harmony with it as any other creature. This is the way we evolved, the way we are isn't down to gods or supernatural (probably not). We could have turned out in numerous different ways, but we didn't. If natural law does not make mistakes then we cannot be anything else but natural.
Click to expand...

Not really, because so many of our ideas are contrary to what is natural. Conflict is the opposite of harmony, is it not?

It is paradoxical and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to explain, but would you not agree that conflict is a state of disharmony between antithetical ideals? If this exists, then how is there harmony?

Maybe this is because even though we naturally evolved, consciousness allowed us to alter our own evolutionary path. Our choices have shaped what we have turned into. This in itself is not inherently a bad thing. I could even argue that the prospect of humans wiping themselves out and destroying the entire planet is not inherently bad and no less natural than if the sun went supernova. However there's a problem - humans don't see it that way.
 
Grayman said:
Yes, I agree. I have considered the idea that humanity would become a sort of super organism with government as the brain, industry as the organs and roads being the viens. We already have shown signs in that direction.

http://thehobbesian.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/humanity-as-a-super-organism/

The are other coorelations such as crime being a cancer and police and military being the immune system.

How much more is there to go?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's something like that.

I also believe that a lot of illness, such as aggression, aversion, deviation and such will arise when the population is under stress. This is not uncommon in social mammals

http://www.intropsych.com/ch09_motivation/stress-induced_behavior.html

Stress-Induced Behavior
Mild stress produces a state of activation that can affect virtually any behavior (Antelman & Caggiula, 1980). Note the word mild. The ideal way to create mild stress in a rat is to pinch its tail gently. The tail-pinch is not painful. If you make a tail-pinch painful by increasing its intensity, the rat's behavior becomes disorganized. Under extreme stress, animals are not activated; they may "freeze." However, given a mild tail pinch, a rat becomes activated. After a tail-pinch, a rat with access to food and water will start eating or drinking within a few seconds, even if it is full. Rats can be made obese this way, suggesting an analogy to stress-induced eating in humans.

How can stress produce a motivational state similar to Hullian drive?
Stress-induced behavior can involve virtually any behavior. A tail-pinched female rat will mother babies, if babies are present. If another rat is present, it may attack the other rat. Classical conditioning occurs faster and is remembered longer after a low-intensity tail shock (Shors, Weiss, & Thompson, 1992). The activation caused by mild stress has these effects in rats:

A mild tail-pinch to a rat has what effect?
1. If babies are present, they are mothered

2. If a rival is present, it is attacked

3. If a mate is present, sexual activity is initiated

4. If there is a threat, defense responses are activated

5. If a pest is present, it is threatened

6. If food is present, it is eaten

7. If water is present, it is drunk

How does this resurrect one of Hull's concepts?
The concept of stress-induced behavior appears to resurrect one of Hull's main concepts (actually one he borrowed from earlier psychologists): that of a drive state in which all behaviors are activated. Apparently mild stress acts like Hullian drive. Students should be able to believe that. Under the mild stress of an approaching examination or term paper deadline, previously impossible behaviors are suddenly activated.

What is "motivational arousal"?
Is the tail-pinch somehow unique as a stressor? Apparently it is not. Antelman and Caggiula (1980) cite studies showing that any form of stress seems to make any behavior more likely, with the behavior depending on context. Brehm and Self (1989) refer to this concept as motivational arousal. Motivational arousal, they say, is increased by needs and mild stresses of all types. For example, in humans, the expectation that a task will be difficult increases motivational arousal.

The exact form of behavior resulting from stress depends on the individual and the situation. If you eat when you are stressed, it is stress-induced eating. If you fight, it is stress-induced aggression. If you are a human who channels stress into constructive activity, you may seem uncommonly motivated or "driven" when influenced by mild stress.
Click to expand...
 
sprinkles said:
Not really, because so many of our ideas are contrary to what is natural. Conflict is the opposite of harmony, is it not?

It is paradoxical and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to explain, but would you not agree that conflict is a state of disharmony between antithetical ideals? If this exists, then how is there harmony?

Maybe this is because even though we naturally evolved, consciousness allowed us to alter our own evolutionary path. Our choices have shaped what we have turned into. This in itself is not inherently a bad thing. I could even argue that the prospect of humans wiping themselves out and destroying the entire planet is not inherently bad and no less natural than if the sun went supernova. However there's a problem - humans don't see it that way.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether we accept dualism as a natural part of reality or see conflict and harmony as things without meaning which we as a species have forced meaning onto them. That, however, is a different topic and one where I find difficult to express my ideas.

If we accept conflict and harmony opposites then yes. However harmony does not need the nullification of conflict. In fact one might argue that conflict is needed in order for harmony to exist. What is good without evil, what is right without wrong?

I would still argue that our current condition is still within the bounds of natural law. We are at this state because we needed to be at this state. We aren't fast or strong or hardy enough to survive without human intellect. And an inherent part of the human mind is the conflict we experience. Perhaps we will eventually evolve to a state where this conflict will no longer be a part of us, but it won't make it any less natural. Just as the tiny amount of bodily hair we have now does not make the stage when we were covered by it any less natural.
 
Jacobi said:
That depends on whether we accept dualism as a natural part of reality or see conflict and harmony as things without meaning which we as a species have forced meaning onto them. That, however, is a different topic and one where I find difficult to express my ideas.

If we accept conflict and harmony opposites then yes. However harmony does not need the nullification of conflict. In fact one might argue that conflict is needed in order for harmony to exist. What is good without evil, what is right without wrong?

I would still argue that our current condition is still within the bounds of natural law. We are at this state because we needed to be at this state. We aren't fast or strong or hardy enough to survive without human intellect. And an inherent part of the human mind is the conflict we experience. Perhaps we will eventually evolve to a state where this conflict will no longer be a part of us, but it won't make it any less natural. Just as the tiny amount of bodily hair we have now does not make the stage when we were covered by it any less natural.
Click to expand...

Well I'm arguing that conflict only exists in your mind.

So your idea that we have forced meaning into things is actually central to my argument.

Our condition is within the bounds of natural law because it is possible and all things possible must necessarily be within natural law. Like if you set off a bomb, if it is working correctly it explodes. If it doesn't explode then there is a reason it doesn't explode - there's no accident either way. Humans on the other hand think about stuff like whether the bomb is a good idea. Good ideas really don't apply to nature. It doesn't care, hence the bomb works because nature works perfectly regardless of moral compunctions.

It will do exactly what you ask it to flawlessly if you ask it correctly. Any mistake comes down to human ignorance.
 
Grayman said:
Yes, I agree. I have considered the idea that humanity would become a sort of super organism with government as the brain, industry as the organs and roads being the viens. We already have shown signs in that direction.

http://thehobbesian.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/humanity-as-a-super-organism/

The are other coorelations such as crime being a cancer and police and military being the immune system.

How much more is there to go?
Click to expand...

But the chief errors of these comparisons made by Plato and Hobbes, lie much deeper. Both thinkers assume that the organization of a society is comparable, not simply to the organization of a living body in general, but to the organization of the human body in particular. There is no warrant whatever for assuming this. It is in no way implied by the evidence; and is simply one of those fancies which we commonly find mixed up with the truths of early speculation. Still more erroneous are the two conceptions in this, that they construe a society as an artificial structure. Plato’s model republic—his ideal of a healthful body-politic—is to be consciously put together by men, just as a watch might be; and Plato manifestly thinks of societies in general as thus originated. Quite specifically does Hobbes express a like view. “For by art,” he says, “is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth.” And he even goes so far as to compare the supposed social contract, from which a society suddenly originates, to the creation of a man by the divine fiat. Thus they both fall into the extreme inconsistency of considering a community as similar in structure to a human being, and yet as produced in the same way as an artificial mechanism—in nature, an organism; in history, a machine.
Click to expand...

Émile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer are due credit for the elaboration of society as a social organism.

Nineteenth century thinker Herbert Spencer coined the term super-organic to focus on social organization (the first chapter of his Principles of Sociology is entitled "Super-organic Evolution"), though this was apparently a distinction between the organic and the social, not an identity: Spencer explored the holistic nature of society as a social organism while distinguishing the ways in which society did not behave like an organism. For Spencer, the super-organic was an emergent property of interacting organisms, that is, human beings. And, as has been argued by D. C. Phillips, there is a "difference between emergence and reductionism."
Click to expand...

“But surely,” it will be said, “the social changes directly produced by law, cannot be classed as spontaneous growths. When parliaments or kings order this or that thing to be done, and appoint officials to do it, the process is clearly artificial; and society to this extent becomes a manufacture rather than a growth.” No, not even these changes are exceptions, if they be real and permanent changes. The true sources of such changes lie deeper than the acts of legislators.
Click to expand...

From his essay 'The Social Organism'.
 
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

It's true that society is an organism. Organisms react to stimuli and drive. Human society does so as well, but is able to project it forward abstractly. Forward projection extends out from the present and immediate nucleus, and will be somewhat determined by it. What will become is crystalized from what is now just as ice crystalizes from a nucleus.

Kings make laws because there are kings, and kings have ideas which come from somewhere about the present, to address things about the present and project forward. What the kings project forward are based on their state of mind and experiences which are themselves crystalized from points prior.

Humans rarely initiate anything outside of cause and effect. I believe this is so unless one can point me to a law that is not from something in the world and pertaining to something in the world, unless you can show me a law that says your froblebrot cannot be snarfel shaped nor sound like peppermint, nor walk like an Egyptian made of space jello.
 
sprinkles said:
Well I'm arguing that conflict only exists in your mind.

So your idea that we have forced meaning into things is actually central to my argument.

Our condition is within the bounds of natural law because it is possible and all things possible must necessarily be within natural law. Like if you set off a bomb, if it is working correctly it explodes. If it doesn't explode then there is a reason it doesn't explode - there's no accident either way. Humans on the other hand think about stuff like whether the bomb is a good idea. Good ideas really don't apply to nature. It doesn't care, hence the bomb works because nature works perfectly regardless of moral compunctions.

It will do exactly what you ask it to flawlessly if you ask it correctly. Any mistake comes down to human ignorance.
Click to expand...

Ah , I see. I thought you were discussing conflict in the general sense, rather than in purely abstract terms. If the idea of conflict only exists in our mind, doesn't that imply opposing ideologies don't actually exist. We think these beliefs are clashing, but they are not. Do you believe that acknowledging this will lead to that supposed conflict to dissolve?

So natural law allows for even defying natural law? Is that the paradox you were suggesting?
 
Jacobi said:
Ah , I see. I thought you were discussing conflict in the general sense, rather than in purely abstract terms. If the idea of conflict only exists in our mind, doesn't that imply opposing ideologies don't actually exist. We think these beliefs are clashing, but they are not. Do you believe that acknowledging this will lead to that supposed conflict to dissolve?

So natural law allows for even defying natural law? Is that the paradox you were suggesting?
Click to expand...

I suppose it is that.

And I suppose that opposing ideologies don't actually exist. Opposing forces exist, but opposing forces settle to a stable system where neither side has any greater value. Unless of course somebody overrides it.

If you consider things such as n-body problem, frozen orbits and lagrangian points in astrophysics, these all depend on opposing forces.

You can hang a satellite around one of the five Lagrangian points because these are where the gravity between the sun, moon and earth combine to create centripetal force for the satellite, causing it to just hang out in space in a kidney bean shaped orbit around what appears to be nothing, but it is actually orbiting a center of gravity in the middle of nothing that is cycled by the other bodies.

Another big one is lunar tides where water gets pulled out towards lunar gravity causing the entire oceans to move around, which is vastly important in having change of seasons, and probably helps keep the earth on axis.
 
Where does such conflict arise from? Why is it that we have this conflict? Someone said a happy person never did anything. If we are open and honest we can be without worry. There is no reason to judge. Because there is nothing to judge. I do not think that we can ever live in a world of what we want to call peace. It is impossible to exist. If you have children you know that brothers and sisters fight. If you had brothers and sisters you know they fought with you. A lot of suffering is needless. It's people misunderstanding and not willing to admit they were wrong. And it is the other sides unwillingness to offer them grace and forgive. Life is cause and effect. We are all learning at different rates. There appears no way to me to have total peace when everyone has to learn and make mistakes. The world has nothing to do with us. Our lives are not about us. Our lives are about those who are around us. We are supported by everything we do not see or even know. And yet we think we know what reality is and yet we cannot even see it or describe it if we had too. We fight over our own thoughts. Thoughts that could be best left to the wind. If we can realize that all our thoughts and actions lead up to a point of travel. What direction are we willing to go. Our life was given to us. None of us asked to be here. We were thrust into a situation we know nothing about. And we have to move blindly through hoping that we are making the right decisions.

The more we want the more we suffer for it. And today where we are is where it has all came to be. This is the world. Like it or not. This is what we have. Like it or not their will be pain. And joy. And sadness. Does not all the pain and sadness go away when Love is given? When understanding is given. No one is right or wrong when we all belong.....​
 
[MENTION=95]efromm[/MENTION]
[video=youtube;wHYWUqe4C18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHYWUqe4C18[/video]
 
"top dogs, queen bees and kings of the jungle"

Kings of the jungle- refers to lions being of the few larger cats to form social groups and therefor being able to scare off other lone cats.
Top Dogs- A pack will often let the young go first to train them or the young will act in hubris out of their own lack of wisdom. They are only top by nature of being at their lifespans peak performance.
Queen bees- This one might be what you are looking for. Regicide and feminine metaphors is an interesting topic.

I would quite enjoy proper vocabulary to build these functions objectively free from their current example.
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=4680]this is only temporary[/MENTION]

If you think about it, the wheel is responsible for world hunger as it allowed humans to expand further and do more than they probably should have. At this point the damage is already done though and we just have to accept that this is how the world works now.

I'd also not knock the deer and cockroach, especially not the cockroach which can go for a month without food and hold it's breath for 45 minutes.

Edit:
Also when put on equal terms, you are more fragile than the deer and way more fragile than the cockroach. Their solution is not to die, their solution is to be survivors without a multi-billion dollar infrastructure pampering them, and they are both quite good at it.
Click to expand...

Whose equal terms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top