Tue 31 Dec 1996 11:10
interestingly, it was good to talk to a younger who had noticed me and I not him, and began to wonder.
It was good, well, lets go on.
.
Wed 01 Jan 1997 18:40
Went to the river this morning and watched it flow by
.
Fri 03 Jan 1997 05:45
Wednesday, January 01, 1997 3:50 AM
The date sure isn't right. It's the third, 5:45 am
.
Sun 12 Jan 1997 13:48
[thanatos.doc]
Eros
Assuming the universe did start as a concentrated energy and is now
dissipating, as suggested by the second? law of thermodynamics. There
must exist a limitation on speed of dissipation, or nothing would
exist- all the energy would have dissipated instantaneously. But it has
not- there are stars and planets, and people. We have all resulted from
the friction against the dissipation of the original energy. The basic
function of a star is to slowly release a bit of the original energy.
Likewise, that is our function (our function is to store energy, when
we die, we re-release it).
Any process in which energy is consumed is a friction or eddying
process. The formation of the earth was the process of various parts at
higher energy levels glomming into something a little more stable, but
not all the energy of the constituent parts was lost. In fact, it was
stored, in the structure of the planet. Perhaps time itself is an
eddying process, were there instantaneous dissipation of the original
energy, there would be no time, only a beginning and an end.
It should not be surprising that Ilya Prigogine found that amino acids
are a more complex form forming from simpler parts. Certainly if there
was no limit to the rate of energy dissipation, there would never be
more complex things in the first place, only a nice uniform energy
distribution, the simplest of all forms, would exist.
We should note then, that the formation of complex entities from
simpler ones is not the exception to universal activity, but the norm.
While a human being may burn a fossil fuel while driving her car, the
action of using energy, the action of taking a more complex form and
breaking it down into a simpler form, is something that only a complex
form can do. A star does the same thing as a human in her car. Or a
plant growing.
Is this right? A star operates by fusion. A plant takes sunlight and
makes itself. An animal eats a plant, and makes itself. The plant is
taking simpler forms and making more complex. The animal is doing the
same. But when the plant dies, it is going from complex to simpler. As
a star dies, it goes from complex to simpler. As a human lives she
moves the process from simpler to more complex.
The act of using energy is a friction process, it is an energy storing
process. A plant stores energy, an animal stores energy, and in a more
difficult way to see, so does the consumer human. A star stored energy
when it was growing, now, it is decomposing. A planet stored energy
when it was forming, now it is dying. But it has an atmosphere. So
there is a tendency in everything to form structures which store
energy. Certainly if the humans were to obliterate the earth, they
would be going against their tendency.
So the formation of life is one such friction process. So what, then,
is the basic evolutionary tendency? Is it to evolve for optimal
survival? Or is it to achieve greater complexity and thus greater
energy storing potential? This seems to be the case. Consider the
formation of a society and culture which is an energy storing process,
a life process. One way of selecting greater energy storing ability (or
whatever this tendency should be called) was to select for that which
could survive better.
So does a herbivore really store more energy than a plant? Does a tree
really store more than a blade of grass? Why should amino acids form?
Why should a tree evolve from a bush or whatever it evolved from?
I have a bit of trouble seeing this energy storing ability in all
things but this is because I have such a limited concept of what energy
storing involves. Certainly the formation of an amino acid stores
energy. Certainly the formation of a star retards the loss of energy.
Likewise with the growth of the plant. Wherein does the insect store
its energy? In the ordering of molecules? In protein synthesis? In the
creation of more complex organisms? In digging a burrow? In flying from
place to place? There is some more sort of organization here that does
not occur in the plant. I should look up Prigogine's work.
At anyrate, the result of this limit to the instantaneous dissipation
of the original energy has, in our case, via natural selection,
resulted in us. So that is the nature of the evolutionary force, (and
every other force).
My task is to explain a behavior of mine using theories. I'm getting
there. At some point, there evolved animal organisms. What is the basic
animal behavior? A non-photosynthetic metabolism, perhaps. This came
from the availability of energy from sources other than the sun, which
would otherwise be dissipated if it weren't for the evol of organisms
to use it, perhaps. Though I could manage a planet of plants, Which
would continuously grow and die, and store more and more energy in
their soil layers. Perhaps Complexity is the operant tendency?
Whatever it is, there were animals. At first these animals were
programmed only by the by the basic selection force. That is a cell
would exist, and depending on environment would survive/not survive,
reproduce/not reproduce. Herein is the early way of reacting to the
environment. So eventually arose more and more complex instinctual
behaviors. This is the tendency of evolving organisms to learn over the
death of many organisms how to better survive. It is not an individual
intelligence, but a species sort of intelligence which is forming. Note
the short life span in a lot of cases.
So why would fish and reptiles form? These things (dammit, I need to
take biology and evolutionary classes, or read, tons) have a greater
potential to adjust within the individual life span. We see the
selection of increasingly more complex nervous systems, memory systems,
learning systems. Yet still this evolutionary business continued.
What is the deal with mammals? This is perhaps a reproductive
advantage, the ability to move around with ones' young instead of being
stuck in one place with them? I am curious to how this occurred. But
note that because fewer young organisms are produced, a premium is
placed on ensuring that the young can survive. The end result of this
tendency I think, is that we have homosapiens sapiens.
selection of behaviors among homo sapiens sapiens
So not only does the h.s. have its behavior basis in the friction
property of the universe, in the instinct of the non-nervous system
animal, and in the instinct of the mammal, we see an amazing ability to
learn within a life span, which has been selected for in the evolution
of mammals, as well as other kingdoms, (or whatever).
What is the significant differentiator between the hss and all others
is its ability to communicate information learned from within a
lifespan to other lifespans outside of the genetic mechanisms. So, with
evolution, at least in our case, we get improved abilities to react and
act on our environments within our lifetimes, and this involves an
ability to learn things within a lifetime, like where the best place to
find food is.
But humans are able to pass this knowledge on better than any other organism. And so, we have humans, and humans rock.
For the first time, evolution moves from a primarily biology oriented
structure to encompass extra-biological structures as well. We can see
this by finding those organisms that are dependent on having certain
experiences in order to learn what they need to know to survive. An ant
has it all already. But a bird probably has to learn, well, never mind,
mammals just have more experiences they need to have to survive than
birds. A social structure becomes as a vehicle for communicating these
experiences.
I am trying to get at the beginning of a society.
We share our learning abilities with a lot of things. Note the
applicibility of operant conditioning. But what about the basis of many
of our other behaviors, and the evolution of social structures and
institutions? The vehicle for all these things is not quite simply our
operants. As skinner notes, there are certain reward things which can
be paired with other activities, but what is the problem here? We do
everything because of certain reinforcements, we are a bunch of
operants. But what selects the tendency, where does the structure which
can have reinforcements come from? Why do certain behaviors tend to
appear more than others?
What is the question? what are the causes of a certain behavior?
And as we have seen there are many causes, but what is the most useful
explanation of the tendency. There are tendencies upon tendency. From
the limitation of dissipation of energy comes the tendency of organisms
to evolve for better survival. From the tendency of organisms to evolve
for better survival, evolves the ability of organisms to learn, as well
as social behaviors. In order for organisms to learn, they must be
motivated to learn, to find food say, there must exist reinforcements,
or no learning will occur.
We should be able to model evolution if we understand the basic principles and constraints. Artificial intelligence.
What are the natures of these reinforcers? I think the motivation of
the individual member of a species is not to survive, but to have the
best quality experience, which in some cases means death, or altruism.
So we have basic motivational circuits, as well as various behavior
structures, which are the result of evolution, whether of the social
kind or not. The experiences which best stimulate our motivational
circuits are the ones we seek. This results in "learned" behavior. We
learn to stimulate ourselves in the best way, or to act in ways to
avoid unpleasant stimulation. There are other behaviors which are
simply built in, breathing, for instance.
don't deny that there exist certain species of people. Not designated
by whether the members of the species can interbreed, but whether they
do (I'll call these social species as opposed to biological species. In
this way, certain behaviors have been selected for. There are those
behaviors that lead to reproduction: avoidance of birth control,
encouraging of large families. The basic motivating factor here
however, is to have a good life. For this reason we see the selection
of behaviors like the use of birth control and a tendency to small
families, or no families at all. In all cases, the basic motivation of
the individual is to have good experience. The result, in all cases, is
the continued survival of the biological species.
When the quality of life is reduced by having more children, adhering
to religious beliefs, living in ignorance, carrying weapons, or
watching TV, these behaviors will be deselected. These very behaviors
continue because they are percieved as important components of quality
experiences.
For an individual to learn that another way of life may be better than
their own some things must happen. First, The individual must be
dissatisfied with her or his present way of behaving, or way of life,
or life opportunities. Then the individual must percieve that there is
a better way to live, and the individual must percieve that she or he
is able to live or behave that way.
It really is largely the perception/sensing of the quality of an
activity, because people have been conditioned differently, there
perceptions of the best way to achieve quality are different, but the
basic experience of a quality activity is generally similar among all
humans. There are certain environmental conditions we all like, there
is a general love of life we all like, we differ in how we think we can
get it. Some people are better at it than others, they are the ones who
are most often content.
It is very possible that people never have the experience of being
loved, for instance. or being listened to, or having their opinion
valued. They may not be as aware of these sources of pleasure, as they
are of others, like social acceptance, or eating. They have not been
conditioned to experience those pleasures, and have been conditioned to
want others more. While one person likes to be a farmer, I might like
to sit here and type, another might like to go to church. We can
respect eachother as long as one's pleasure does not interfere with
anothers, and neither feels bad about what the other is doing, and,
Ideally feels good about what the other is doing. As long as these
conditions are met we can live together happily, peacefully, which some
of us have been conditioned to want to do. But this is not anywhere
close to being the case right now.
That is it!!!! My plan for describing the development of my trait is to
expand the sociobiological/ethological perspective to contain the
learning, cognitive, and social learning theories. My behavior is:
trying to have the best experience possible, (which I have found is
helped by thinking about best experience and by trying to understand
it).
The individual's focus on best experience is selected above the focus
on survival because it encourages survival of the species. The best
experiences are those which stimulate our evolved and learned
reinforcement structures the best. We learn to have the better
experience by being dissatisfied with our present experience, looking
around to see if there is a better way to live, and then figuring out
how to live that way.
Evolution of better experience is facilitated by accurate and quick
communication of new developments in living. Evolution of better
experience is facilitated by dissatisfaction with the present way of
life (or satisfaction in the perception that one's present activites
will enable one to have or continue having good experience in the
future).
Many other behavioral structures have evolved to encourage necessary
lower-level functions, like breathing, reproduction, etc. In many
cases, living the best quality life involves breathing, and on limited
occasions, reproduction.
My theory can be tested by seeing how changing people's perception of the quality life can influence their behavior.
I would like to say that certain behaviors (ones I like) will be
selected over others when individuals focus on quality of life, instead
of other goals, but I am not sure this is true. I guess I believe that
if accurate information about the nature of quality experience is
communicated and understood, and questioned, the most positive
behaviors will be selected. (positive=improving the general quality of
people's experience, quality is a feeling (feeling=a pattern of
reinforcements based on the biological experience of pleasure, like
orgasm or the drug experience. A positive feeling increases the
probability of a behavior, negative decreases... (not my idea, a
behaviorist's)) people have which is dependent on their conditioning.
Quality should become self-determined if questioning of quality is
encouraged, but so often people are encouraged to accept external
opinions as to what quality behavior is)
What then do I mean by positive behaviors? the ones which lead to the
most positive feelings in the most people. Killing is not a positive
behavior. Abortion may be, depending on people's conditioning. Ideally,
we will all be doing what we love and loving what everyone else is
doing, because we see how they help us do what we love. I.E. people
will be doing things because of positive feelings, they will not not be
doing things because of negative feelings.
Yes.
.