FORUM VOŠ Domažlice

I have found this link this morning.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/04/inequality_and_perceptions_of.php

It is a blog and there are two interesing ideas and I have written my comment to it, and I also post my comment here, but you may want to read what made me write my comment.

Monkeys and their fairness or just only negotiating behavior??

Well, both can bee seen, the reaction occurs in context, and we, as well as monkeys are multi-level thinker: So both examples are correct. There is one truth about reactions and information and context.

Just consider the caser of a marriage swindler, he says how much he loves a woman, maybe he does a bit, but his goal is to get her money. Now take a man ho really loves that woman, he also says he loves her.

So you have two extremely similar behavioral expressions but they mean completely something different. They are differently motivated.

The same is with the monkeys: they would perform two extremely similar behavioral actions but the trigger for this action would be different. Once it is fairness and in the second situation it is the rejection of lower quality offer. But the displayed action is the same, or nearly the same.

Another example in humans, just consider a person entering a room a greeting everybody. And then comes the second person and also greets everybody. Where is the difference? Well, one person greets because this person loves people and likes to get into contact with them and respect them. The other person does not like people but was severely taught by mother to greet anytime when entering a room and if not greeting mother applied some kind of punishment. You have the same or nearly the same behavior displayed by the two persons but the motivation was different.

If you properly watch the behavior of people and animals you will find many other examples where the same behavior means slightly or severely different motivation, and thus also different explanation of such behavior.

The experiment with $10 and offering $5 to the other one is extremely narrow experiment, as there is no other contextual information, which is not usually true in real life. People live in groups and so they have always some other additional information, or they ask for some other additional information.

Imagine following example: you want to get something repaired in your home so you ask two or three experts to make you an offer, but this is not enough you go around and ask in your neighborhood how these experts accomplished their tasks. So solely the price is not enough,, you need the context of quality of work, you need references, you need more contextual information.

Back to our $-experiment and real life. If in real life I would be asked to divide ten bucks between me an the other, there were many other aspect also important. If the person is really a good on I can trust, and the person already has helped me many times, so I offer $6 for the person and only $4 for myself, and opposite, if the person has proved unreliable and there is a danger of being hurt by that person I would offer very little, maybe only two or nothing at all, as it would be better for me when the person rejects and I can get my money from somewhere else.

So life is not as simple as in this experiment with $ or with monkeys.

Marc Bekoff

Just this morning I have found article by Marc Bekoff. The article says that animals have emotions and many other things explored. Marc is one of the world leading experts on animals.

Read as much as possible of that what he has written. I will post some links here to his page and you should explore his page as much as possible; there are links to some radio interviews with Marc, so you can also hear him speaking.


http://literati.net/Bekoff/
this link is Marc’s Home page

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3702
this is a link is to article he wrote and I have read just today and how I found Marc.

Childless female university graduates

New trends in evolution of humans

This morning Google has brought to me an article from British Internet Newspaper Telegraph showing that there is increasing number of female university graduates who will never have children. Researchers have compared several groups of women with university degree who were born in different years and found out that the number of childless female university graduates increases.

I myself divide people into “memetic” and “genetic” people, though I know this division is highly imprecise. But I see that we humans are driven by two factors: one being genetic drive which basically every creature must have in one or the other way, otherwise there would be no genetic development. The other I call memetic drive, though I know many thinkers have already abandoned the term “meme” and memetics as well.

The only one who slightly suggests some dialectical fight between these two is Blackmore, who says approximately that genes and memes fight in us to gain the power over the other to guide us.

Back to the findings of British researchers: it seems that the life shows at least some shift from genetically driven people to mimetically driven people as these findings suggest. This might be a shock for some people to find out that their “normal” behavior is actually animalistic type of behavior. The mimetically driven people might be the next stage in the evolution of humans, but we will have to solve a problem, with passing on our genes in some other way than we are used t now.

Female university graduates with no children do contribute to the total wealth of nation or mankind as such but they do not pass their genes onto the next generation, which can cause some problems in the short run; especially, the lack of smart children in the next generation. This, of course can be solved technically in the future, and we are heading straight into the type of society described by Huxley in his book “The brave new world”.

In the long run this problem will be solved “technically” and socially as well, some other female or “machine” will “create” the child with the genes of smart women, and some other woman will take care of such child when it is “born”.

It is an evolutionary trap, genetic information is formed and passed over extremely slowly, whereas Memetic” information can be passed over extremely fast, within few seconds, or days compared to many and many generations needed until some kind of genetic change really occurs.

The influence of memetic information will gain more power in the evolution and genetic information along with genetic way of passing such information further will be used only as long as we stay unable to overcome this shortcoming of slow speed of this genetic transfer of information.

I think that the following can be viewed as an example for the difference in speed of passing information over, comparing genetic way and memetic way of passing information. What I mean is the speed of emancipation that happened in last 50 years. When we compare several thousands or even millions of years of evolution in mammals or primates then we can see that females were always, with some minimum of exceptions, subordinated to males, and genetic information was passed over in the slow and old fashioned way. Today with females having access to high memetic information the number of females preferring to bear no children is increasing. These women prefer the memetic type of gaining, processing and transferring information.

This in turn shows that Blackmore had really a good feeling about that, though she was unable to pursue the clue. She may have not fully understood what she actually came across. The idea of fight between genes and memes seems to be a mistake at first sight but it is not.

The very basis of evolution is information, its gathering, processing and passing onto the next biological generation. Genetically encoded information is changing really slowly, from our stand point; the memetic information can be changed within seconds. This difference might be the reason for some females to decide not to have children. Such decision actually is nothing else than a choice what kind of information and how they want to deal with, the memetic or the genetic way.

For working purposes I have made the division into memetic and genetic people already several years ago, based on Blackmore’s correct vision of the dialectic fight of memes and genes. Now this article in telegraph shows I was most probably right, there is a continuous drive for more memetic information.

Music of the SUN

Sun's Atmosphere Sings - Yahoo! News

This is article on some scientific finding and ideas. Scientists believe to have caught “Music” of our SUN. Extremely interesting and also extremely supporting my ideas of evolution.

Please, do not get misguided by the word “Music”, what we really mean is only sound. But, it is possible that the quality of the sound of our Sun can resemble some music we are used to now.

The explanation of this coincidence is relatively easy: some time ago we were able to “hear” the sound of Sun and it got stored in DNA, so when we produce a musical instrument we perceive its performance as ok only if it resembles at least partially the sound of Sun.

You should read the article as soon as possible; I have no idea how long it will stay online.

this is my reaction to this blog

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/04/theology-and-evolutionary-psychology_19.html


FEAR OF CARS

Excellent ideas on evolutionary psychology and evolution but I would like to oppose a bit as far as the fear of cars is concerned. Your question was not a proper one, or the people did not tell the truth.

Drivers are afraid of cars, but not of sedans, they are afraid of huge trucks. This fear of huge trucks is bigger in females than males, though even males are afraid of huge trucks sometimes.

The reason here is also evolutionary one and one of the absolutely basic reasons for fear: the size and the speed. Because we all are only biological organisms and we live according to pattern “eat or be eaten” and “fight or flight”, the size of something approaching plus the speed of approaching was a good signal for “fight or flight”.

The size of huge truck makes some people feel the fear of it, and this fear was developed as a warning signal, because if something is bigger than me I should flee and if it can develop higher speed than I can I am really in bad trouble.

Think of this - most probably first –warning signals which are size and speed, and therefore when people say they are not afraid of cars, they do not say the full truth.

Have the mankind reached the critical mass??

Well, this is a good question, posted in Virginia Tech, Behavioural Sinks, The Killings . The question and comparison with rats is really extremely good. But the author of the post has forgotten that there is another developmental stream in human society that differs from rats and other animals. If you are hungry you go to the nearest shop and you get what you need. Rats and animals cannot do that. So we are taught by our own development that it is not necessary to kill when there are too many other humans around. This signal is not threat any more.

For rats it is a threat. If there are too many of them the amount of food per rat capita gets too small and they “know” they might die or end up with no offsprings. Therefore they fight for food.

In human society we can observe many different types of organizing patterns. In so called developed societies and in cities people usually do not have to fear any kind of famine. In some regions of Africa this does not function, here people have many problems how to stay alive, a bit similar like the rats in the quoted post.

SO if we want to think of humans as further evolutionary development of rats, this of course fits, but not absolutistic; we must see other influences humans must react accordingly, and one of them is huge amounts of easily accessible food in developed countries.

Therefore the question if mankind has reached the critical mass - like in rats that kill there fellows in order to maintain their own lives - cannot be exactly applied to mankind. Only some parts of human society lives in similar conditions as rats. In such societies, of course, we can observe similar behavioral patterns as those of rats. Ii is necessary to view certain factor linked with their contexts.

It seems to me that stress is the point. If some organism is put under stress it is signal to the organism to take some action. In this light stress might be viewed as pain of fear, these two are also signals of body saying there is something wrong going on and some action is required.

Columbia Missourian - Life on hold

This is another excellent article on humans, women and their ideas of what is important in their lives. It is really worth reading, go ahead and widen your horizons.

American Chronicle: Animal Emotion: Do We Drug Normal Human Behavior?

This is headline of article that, according to my understanding fully supports my ideas of evolution. The only thing I can do is to advice everyone interested in evolution to read this article. Have fun.

I have written this post as a response to this post on this link

http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2007/04/4155_coed_half-naked_hunting.html

Evolution, hierarchy, behavior and limits of thinking

What can I say more? Only , you are right; there is unfortunately a huge number of people who succeeded in getting a position of a professor etc, and being so equipped with authority of their function they do not hesitate to provided us, „stupid non-professors“ and “no function chair” individuals with stupid information. The problem is, sometimes they really do believe the nonsense they are producing.

On my blog I have already wrote about several professors like this one. One saying that animals cannot imitate, the other one saying that music was extremely important in the evolution of humans (would be nice to see a chimp composing some kind of easy music), (it was not music but it was sound and noise).

Very often professors get caught in their attempts to make “super” “perfect” definitions at the very beginning of some kind of study, like memetics. Memetics is a good science, now nearly abandoned, just because o f extremely stupid definitions provided by some professors. These professors were not willing to accept the idea of joining memetics with semiotics and thus killing memetics completely.

There are thousands of such examples in our short history, just think of Galileo, or of global warming being caused by CO2 nonsense. There were always people trying to mislead the other people in order to gain some kind of advantage: it is evolution. Another good example is marriage swindler, pretending something so well that women get caught. And now think of our politicians, all over the world, basically, they do the same. So it is no only professors, these are people who want to get high in the hierarchy of human society whatever it may cost. These are, from evolutionary point of view, “normal” people, because they go for their benefit.

People who try to help others are actually, from the evolutionary point of view” far from being normal, as they do not try to get some evolutionary advantage for themselves. It could be that these people are higher developed in evolution, trying to help the whole instead trying to get their own benefit secured.

If you want to read more of my ideas you may find them here:

http://www.hlavni–vos.blogspot.com/

CO2 and global warming: politics vs. science

This is fine mistake that keeps being repeated by nearly everyone, be it politicians, teachers journalists etc, that CO2 makes our climate warmer. This is correct, but only to a small tiny extend. Methane is the gas that retains 25x more warmth as CO2, and methane is produced by cows, every cow produces about 600 liters of this gas a day. This means that CO2 contributes by about 4 to 5% to global warming compared to methane. So, if we succeed to get rid of CO2 completely we reduce the global warming only by maximally 5%, the rest of 95% will still continue having its impact.

This information comes from the book "DNA: Secret of Life" by James D. Watson (on page 132), who got his Nobel price for discovering double helix form of DNA more than 50 years ago.

If you can understand German, then Prof. Lesch and his TV and web video short lectures might be interesting for you, especially the last one, “04.04.2007, Wieso kommt es zu Eiszeiten?”, (How do Ice Times occur?), dealing with the ice times on Earth and global warming. You may find this one and other of his lectures at Alpha Centauri .

He says that 80% of the time of the history of Earth was completely without ice, last ice time was 250 million years ago, and since 3 million years we have ice time until now, and we live in ice time right now. The first ice time scientists know was 2.3 billion years ago, and then 1 billion years long there was no ice at all. So we have “ICE TIMES” and times without ice.

In the times of no ice the weather is extremely stable; but in the ICE TIMES the weather is pretty unstable, based on isotopes; heavy isotopes do not evaporate so easily, sea water evaporates, the easy part stays in the air, as snow; the change of proportion of isotopes, the proportion of light and heavy isotopes of oxygen cause huge temperature jumps that occurred in last 3 million years, by more than 10 to 15 degrees in less than 10 years. This can be found in the set up of heavy and light isotopes of oxygen. Just only 18 000 years ago we had the “cold period” in our ice time. Most of today’s Europe was under ice.

Dinosauria lived in warm, iceless times between the last and present ice times; they were able to develop as the weather was warm, humid and stable over millions of years.

So, once again, there is basically no evidence, or just only poor evidence that CO2 is causing global warming; therefore it seems that somebody is either on purpose misleading us, or he is just only too poorly informed. It is really always good to listen to smart men and women and do not listen to politicians, they are usually not too smart.

Politicians usually only want to stay at their offices as it is a nice life to be a politician; they have no responsibility whatsoever, good pay and good life. Examples are Bush, Merkel, Kohl, Thatcher, Klaus, Honecker, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Napoleon, and many other useless people, who put themselves on the thrones of their respective human herd, and it was all they mastered.

Gender differences

Google has sent me the following link The Male-Warrior Hypothesis with extremely interesting observation on gender based differences in behavior. Scientists have found that males do cooperate more within their own group if there is another group competing with them. Scientists try to explain this by the fact that males were warriors. There is other link to the scientific work "Gender differences in cooperation and competition" .

This seems extremely plausible. Actually, we watch this daily, in soccer, ice hockey and other games, football, basketball, cricket. In any kind of team games or sports, we see the cooperation.

Women also do practice these team sports but not so much. I have tried to find out what might make females different. I believe it is the sexual selection. Females usually do not get involved in wars, unless forced by males, one reason could be that they do not care, because they will be “raped” anyway, and actually, from the point of sexual selection in evolution from the female point of view, the winner is good enough to mate with, no matter who the winner is. The signal for females is the winning: a male or groups of males winning over another group of males are more attractive to females.

So females do not have to get involved in such cooperation, they only “harvest” the results of male competition. And because males know that, they try to make coalitions, teams, groups, to have chances to win against other groups and so have the chance to pass their genes on.

Females then take care of their children, and they do not need any cooperation, they need help with the work load they have to accomplish, mostly females prefer help from grandparents, males on the other hand prefer going out and get into groups of other males to accomplish their collective tasks.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. If it were not, there would be no evolution. Always something must happen for the first time and then the idea gets spread, but it never gets spread to 100%.