A few posts back I presented examples supporting the quote just above. We go about so much of our daily life attributing our behavior to our free will, yet we can’t escape the realization that we are actually guided by deep-seated instinct. But obviously there are other factors which contribute to the development of behavioral expectations?

I think many of our behaviors are actually misguided and tend to make our actions totally unpredictable, as a whole. We have failed to acknowledge and recognize our needs and how our instincts/DNA work instead, we are in competition for control over that which has developed to keep us alive for the continuance of our species.

So anyway, at this point we would be discussing behaviors that are driven by self perception (what creative has termed thought/belief). However, I think it’s important not to lose sight of what universally guides our behavior because we must either act according to that foundation or we must override it.

If we act without considering the rather hidden aspects of instinct/dna then our actions are totally informed and NATURALLY those behaviors will be based on the unknowable or that which we call individual human thought.

Abraham Maslow (Hierarchy of Needs – 1940s) His idea was that humans follow a basic pattern of behaviors which are instinctual. He likened the pattern of behavior to a ladder (which later became a pyramid).

A human, according to Maslow, cannot take steps up the ladder before acquiring the need on the rung below. For most of the steps it’s because we cannot spend time and energy pursuing something else before we have stabilized the prior needs. (this was a step away from behaviorist (animal) thinking and into the realm of developmental psychology)

Physiological need: - The first rung (human NEED) on the ladder was the striving for physiological stability - gaining and maintaining access to life’s necessities: food, air, and water, shelter….

Safety Needs Secondary needs – to feel save within our environment

Loving and being loved

Esteem: is the fourth - The need to have respected, and valued by others and in this process to develop and affirm one’s own self-esteem.

Self-actualization - According to Maslow, every human, having met the other requirements, could become self-actualizing. That is to say, that every human would become proficient in and capable of realizing a function and it would be done with a sense of value, worth, and self esteem.

Maslow developed his ideas totally apart from ethical research and the number of dimensions he consideres are scant. Oddly, his idea has been a profound basis from which many philosophical and psychological ideas have grown.

In both circles it is still highly debated as to how many people can actually become self-actualized. Of course many have attributed great ethical development to those can achieve self-actualization, while Maslow was envisioning responsible adulthood.

Let's consider this from another angle first: Let's consider the extent to which "nature" is the major contributing force in the development of our behavioral expectations.





The first argument I would offer on behalf of nature is the application of Darwinian theory to the social inclination of humans. Historically, human survival has depended on our ability to ‘get along’ with others. This is a necessity, it helps the group bring children into adulthood and protects and benefits women when pregnant and nursing, we attribute the development of many hormones to attachment we develop to our children, our mates and family.

Overall, we simply find the greatest benefit in numbers because we need the various types of talent which provide creativity, spacial acuity, the mechanically adept, mathematically inclined and all manner of abstract thought which together keep the social group protected.

DNA can be coded for survival in animals to the fine point where no spider is taught how to build its web, yet particular designs are attributed to particular spiders. We expect that kind of behavior from animals but we tend to attribute human behavior to other things.



How much our difference would you attribute to survival instinct and how much to our environment?



Civil codes of conduct:
If we dig deeply, would we find these laws to be necessary? A look at the anthropological and archeological data may be construed to indicate that humans remained in smaller groups for most of our existence. Resource scarcity is, historically, the reason for enmity, battles and wars, which is logical but it fundamental basis is grounded in survival instinct – we protect that which adds to our chances of survival and attack what is harmful. This indicates that we (humans) hold a certain expectation that can be generalized to all populations: we expect that people will be malleable.

We are malleable creatures or the creation of civil codes of conduct would have little effect in maintaining social accord. But is that an inherent quality that has developed out of necessity for the continuance of our species?

It would be difficult to say otherwise because the people who willingly grant power over the tribe versus the number of people who seek and accept it would indicate that the exceeding majority expect to be protected and are willing to abide by the social concepts which keep the peace. (further reading on the philosophy of the social contract).

So once again we share a universal expectations about our leadership and accepting our civil order.



I have just presented example supporting the quote just above. We go about so much of our daily life attributing our behavior to our free will, yet we can’t escape the realization that we are actually guided by deep-seated instinct. But obviously there are other factors which contribute to the development of behavioral expectations?

I will break here for another post responding to a questions Creative posed. The information in it may prove useful to the continued discussion.

It might be a good idea to start figureing out NOW everything that could possibly occur that would make your statement incorrect. Like: Well I never said I was a prophet....

In fact, it might be more conscientious of you to say that YOU hold this belief rather than to go for the drama of the closed ended, unbendable statement that you've made.

The way you've said it can be offensive to all the other baby Christians who don't believe as you do, and they think they are right too.

It makes it sound like it's all about ego, doesn't it? I know it's not becasue those who have made such claims in the past tend to look very foolish after the date has come and gone rather uneventfully. That certainly doesn't do much for the ego - does it?

During the two 'Great Wars', Australia proved to be great alliance.

Now, whether it's just media propaganda, directed misinformation, or closer to fact, it seems the powers that be are scutinizing China's behavior and with a foe like China and the push from the middle east to abandon our military presence there, it certainly seems logical to re-build strong alliances with a long history of success. That would be Australia.

The whole world needs to be on guard and pay attention to what every nation's ruling class is doing and saying. We should never allow another 'Great War' and we should be ending wars that exist.

Every war, at this point, is a threat to all of humanity and we (those whom are ruled) should be united against entering into such bitter action.

Just my opinion.

Actually this is an intersting topic.

If we were strictly driven to act by instinct, then our behaviors could be quite predictable. Behaviorism developed into a science from more philosophical ideas.

Humans were once studied (behaviorally) at the same level as other animals. Wundt – Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, Gutherie, and the very prominant B.F. skinner as well as a great many others played big roles in turning philosophy into a science.

We are driven by instinct but not necessarily controlled by it. Nurture entered the picture and it was thought that we learn behaviors through the tribes (family and culture). In the mean time, as scientific theories began to abound, so did philosophical theories of mind – enter the cognitive scientists and the social psychologists and the firestorm between philosophy and psychology continues.

Nature, nurture, mind, social, environment – these are the predictors of behavior; the level at which they interact, overlap, or even exist in any given individual is, so far, proven to be quite an elusive thing.

It has provided me with many years of good reading, thought provoking ideas, and a better understanding of myself and others, but only with a much greater emphasis on skepticism.

So, with skepticism, I would suggest that within 'Nature' are the origens of human development and it is generally nature that is the last threshhold of our human instinct, as when the end of life takes the route of degrading cognitive functions.

Therefore, I expect that behavior can best be predicted in more controlled envirnments.

Ah, this has been an ongoing and greatly researched topic.
The first step is to make sure there are qualified I/O psychologists runnign the H/R department.

The next step is to perform a thorough job analysis.
Then every similar job requires a job description.
The job description is used in recruiting and hiring.

While that's going on, the qualified H/R people gather personal and graphical data on their employees while researching the lates peer reviewed studies about motivation.

Then the overworked and under appreciated H/R team determines which type of incentive programs will motivate the type of employees they tend to have.

Additionally, perfomance reviews, pay increases, and promotions are used as reinforcers to 'behaviors'.

As for " inanimate objects" if the plan had been well conceived, painstakenly designed, and produced with care, then a stapler would behave as expected - obviously the H/R department is not in charge of the producation of inanimate objects that falls under consumerism and is at the mercy of the corporate board of directors.

HI CREATIVE - hi all you would be philosophers and science types.

Sorry, class overload. My brain cells are too damn tired to synapse profusely enough to engage in deep conversations. Hope you all enjoy.

In the beginning God created ... and on Earth were fruit trees, and plentiful plants from which the animals, including humans could eat.

fast forward: Then there were explicit instructions and rules about food preparation and what could be eaten.

fast forward: Then there was another change and all the 'ritual' instructions about food were dropped because... somethink having to do with a man named Jesus.

fast forward: NOW all the animals including, and thanks to, humans, are eating toxins, carcinogens, metals and genetic altering materials - getting sick in masses and in some cases becoming extinct.

Oddly, there has been no further instruction or new rules offered.

This is just opinion, but it makes sense to me that we should THINK for ourselves and stop poisening our environment, and start demanding a return to eating all natural, organic, whole foods.

After all, isn't religion all about the afterlife? Doesn't it make sense that WE must be responsible for the before death part? Maybe that's why there have no new revelations or additions to scripture about what we eat or how we treat our environment.

My first thought:
How thoughtful of you to offer the love of your god, and then quickly follow it up with the minor stipulation, like the hell depicted by the OP if/when that the mere idea of you god is not accepted.

Secondly: If that love passes all understanding, who could possibly understand what having that love means or even begin to create a construct such at the hell portrayed in the OP.

Its no wonder as to why there are so many beliefs, because there is no human who can understand where its coming from or what it entails.

Again it just demonstrates that however beliefs are formed, they are not stemming from a 'single' source.

So believe what you will, but you can't all be right. Perhaps what is least understood is that the hell one may be heading for is of one's own design.

There are so many Christians and so many conflicting beliefs among them. It's rather like 'ethnicity', there tend to be many cultural beliefs that go along with ethnicity too.

Some Christians believe that the promise of heaven is a physical existence 'on the Earth' without pain, or fear, or illness, and so on. An eternity in the physical form.

Those Christian point to all kinds of biblical references to support that particular belief.

In effect, according to such belief, we aren't really spiritual beings at all, simply 'directed' (if we choose to be) by the spirit that is God.

Then some Christians believe in hell but only as a temporary form of suffering until ... well whatever is suppose to happen does happen and then hell will be no more and neither will those who inhabited it.

Then some Christians simply choose to see hell as an eternal existence away from God.

I just wanted to share all that because it demonstrates that one person's belief may, in fact, be the only hell that actually exists.


I were a praying person, I would certainly pray that all those who so fear the torment of an everlasing hell, in hopes that they would come to understand that not every person's beliefs can be totally correct. So why not make it a little easier on yourself and on those you try to save (out of love)from the torment of your own personal belief.

Surely there are better things we can do for our family, friends, and neighbors than to try to save them from such unfounded beliefs.

Good points were made here but there is one hasn't been made yet - psychological necessity is another one of those times when treatment may not seem necessary to some but to the person suffering it's necessary.

Health insurance is a risk industry and a very profitable one at that. Health insurance should have few restrictions and only those because it's not up to the 'service' who issues the insurance to make the rules about medical necessity. It's up to the patient and the medical staff the patient chooses.

The governemnt has no more right to judge the validity of medical decisions than the insurance companies. Because contraception and abortion are legal and because every situation is different, there is no way to make a blanket policy for the adult use of these things, so I contend that it would be a human rights violation for the governemnt to attempt to dictate case by case law.

I agree with Eileena - the health insurance package sould be a complete package. It doesn't make sense to pick and choose what is or isn't covered in agreement with what one 'believes' may or may not be necesssary for them.

If this is an attempt to socialize medicine, then it needs to be a full socialization.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do Democrats and Republicans. And it has nothing to do with politics, at least not on the face of things.

I'm not talking about anything illegal - in fact, what I'm talking about is 'using' the system and its laws to its fullest potential, which is no less than what the major corporate powers have been doing for years.

Right now as borrowing is at this low of an interest rate is the best time to began new 'middle-class' philathropic ventures, like starting more green businesses. Investing in new media - hell we have 24 hour streaming video of OWS - the method of communication is out there, we just need to populate the channels and then direct folks to them.

And by the way, it might be helpful to know if there is anything at all in this current system that you or others think is worth keeping?

As for me I like non-profit Credit Unions, I think that's how all financial services should be run - as a 'service' to the people.

Here's the thing, it seems you have already decided what people need. If a person has type II diabetes and doesn't STRICTLY follow doctors orders, would you deny coverage for any future 'illness, sickness or pain' that is related to type II diabetes?

If a person does not quit smoking would you deny coverage for medical treatment that can be linked to smoking?

If a person smoked and quit but later developed COPD should they be denied coverage becasue they 'elected' to do something that was a risk factor for getting COPD?

What is and is not necessary? Should we refuse to treat psychological illnesses, after all can we really cure them all?

What about a trans-sexual who develops cancer that some studies say are linked to the hormones they take. Should we deny them treatment?

We can't determine what is necessary for everyone when every situation is different. The legal system could not bear the strain of all the laws, much the lawsuits.

We have to look at an overall picture. If there cause to believe that an abortion is a 'necessary' procedure then who will be the one passing that judgement? If there is any believe at all, that any situation would make contraceptives or abortions a necessity then all cases must be approved.

It's really pretty simple - it's like human rights - if it's good one group, it must be good for all groups.

I agree that we need to end this major military presence throughout the world. I also admit that I can't imagine a need to maintain so many troops on our own shores.

For those who are not re-upped what jobs will they have?

Ok, so we may be discussing two different things.

The power of the government to decide for the people what is or is not a medical necessity

vs.

the government having the power to decide which organizations (federally funded or not) can subsidize medical options at the people's determination of medical necessity.


Is that an acurate assessment? If not please make corrections so that we are all discussing only one dimension of the issue at a time.

Yes, in fact cutting social security and related entitlements is a real farce as the current structure is sound, just as it is, and by some estimates it's sound until 2032.

I think what they are all 'banking' on is keeping the current corruption in the hands of the most elite corrupt.

It's the political structure and those who populate the higer ranks that are least likely to make corrections in favor of the 'so-called 99%'.

We have a blurry vision of an important construct within the population who support the OWS. It needs to be roped in and the power in those numbers will have the ability to effectively undermine the current political strutural failures.

By building an ethical system of business and international cohesion for that business from within the population, we could effectively force changes in the wider population which would influence the focus, vision, and ethics of those who run for office in the future.

It's a process and it needs to emerge from the bottom up. The first step is to recognize and point out the corruption - which is currently being done with the OWS movement.

The second and third step must be concurrent, as we educate the public about ethics in government, business and internal and international trade and commerce, we need to be building business that align with those features.

The goal should be to unite governmental interests with those of the people.

The sentiments are aimed in the right directions but not well thought out. In fact those who currently have all the power in this country to make those things happen, are the people against whom some of the most severe action should be taken.

But do you opposed or favor the government making it an illegal option for any mandated insurance plan that is subsidised by our taxes?

And would you oppose the government using their power to make it illegal for any organization who benefits from government contracts or subsidies to deny abortions or contraceptives to anyone for any reason?

Ok let's dig here.

First of all if health insurance is an option and those who can afford the option want to include coverage for abortions, birth control and OMG even viagra then it SHOULD BE an option.

But if those who do not have the means to have an option are not offered those benefits then do you really think they can affort to purchase those things?

If they can't afford birth control then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the WHOLE society to make sure it's the insurance package they are required to have?

It's a really a no brainer. We ARE overpopulated and we have learned that the majority who grow up in poverty also live and die not far from it.

While there are many reasons for the poverty that some must live with, there is no reason to perpetuate that which can be controlled.

As for the comment about using self-control: I think we have to honest and ask ourselves a serious question - why should society ask those with the lowest of means to have greater self-control than those who can pay their way out of indulgent, petty, and thoughtless disregard?

And one more thing - contrasting two or more things means showing how they overlap, while comparing two or more things means showing their differences and similarities.

Now that we've defined those things I would like to know in what context plastic surgery was used in relation to birth control?

The only context I can immagine would be reparitive plastic surgery which is often required in cases of burns, accidents, secondary to other major surgeries and birth defects.

But it's beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would design an insurance package that did no include those things. Just as it makes no sense for a health package not to include birth control, abortion, and even viagra.

Being poor is not a crime but forcing people to think that financial success makes one more human should be a crime.