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.

.