The intellectual ability to grow above our evolutionary instincts.

[Michael Hardner]

Our government isn't communist. Thankfull. As everyone is interdependent on each other to do their volunteering work. ...

As for our government we don't do volunteering.

? We don't do volunteering ? Or we do ?

[Freddy]

? We don't do volunteering ? Or we do ?

The communist system is based on volunteer work. Everyone works for free.

Our socialist systems are more like a charity based system where everyone must pay a sum out of their personal gains.

Our system is better insulated from the weakest link in our collectivity. Because we have competition and the best at what they do is awarded with the gains.

It stimulates people to work towards being good at what they do. And helps raise the level of competence in our population. We use the idea that it's better for you to work towards not being the weakest link.

We give the ability to our population to capitalize on their high level of intelligence, knowlage and skills. And you are rewarded for achieving those things.

[eyeball]

Volunteerism is worth $50 billion per year in Canada to our economy...3% of GDP. The value of a volunteer hour is something like $18 - $20 per last time I looked.

A new report from TD Bank has pegged the economic value of volunteering in Canada at $50 billion each year, or about three per cent of Canada’s GDP, which is the same size as the Manitoba economy.

Source

A good part of our economy probably owes it's existence to volunteerism. Ironically it also demands everyone have a job and pull their own weight - a moral imperative that seems a little scandalous given the amount of unpaid work it's leaning on and the number of people looking for a job.

Edited September 14, 2015 by eyeball

[Freddy]

Volunteerism is worth $50 billion per year in Canada to our economy...3% of GDP. The value of a volunteer hour is something like $18 - $20 per last time I looked.

A good part of our economy probably owes it's existence to volunteerism. Ironically it also demands everyone have a job and pull their own weight - a moral imperative that seems a little scandalous given the amount of unpaid work it's leaning on and the number of people looking for a job.

Interesting.

But is it forced conscription volunteering like in communist countries?

Or it's strictly out of free willingness to help?

[eyeball]

Yes it is interesting, and don't get me wrong, I've volunteered for years, in local government, fire-fighter, broom puller, garbage picker, fish habitat fixer-upper, lots of things.

It's still unpaid labour and I'm simply saying it shouldn't be strictly free, not when so many people need a job, not when there is so much that needs doing and especially not with the moral imperative I mentioned.

[RB]

One theme I often run into with some members, is that, with our intelligence, humans can rise above instincts and emotions.

But how often do we succeed?

My guess is you are making reference to the experience you are having with these discussions. My research area of interest is on human intelligence, and intellectual capital I can explain in short that your intelligence is based on dimensions (what you are saying basically) I am putting it into perspective...soical, physical, psycological etc. and can accummulate assets such as learning begins as soon as we are born so there is growth, if you can have a connectedness with the dimensions then more asset building. The question of rising above evolutionary instinct suggest that there is faltering (depleting the asset building) such as engaging in harmful or risky choices or behavior. For the fix you have choices, continue downhill on paths or emerge like a "new man". The world does not revolve around good for us bad for us, it is given all the dimensions what you are up to and how smart you want to be today.

[Freddy]

My guess is you are making reference to the experience you are having with these discussions. My research area of interest is on human intelligence, and intellectual capital I can explain in short that your intelligence is based on dimensions (what you are saying basically) I am putting it into perspective...soical, physical, psycological etc. and can accummulate assets such as learning begins as soon as we are born so there is growth, if you can have a connectedness with the dimensions then more asset building. The question of rising above evolutionary instinct suggest that there is faltering (depleting the asset building) such as engaging in harmful or risky choices or behavior. For the fix you have choices, continue downhill on paths or emerge like a "new man". The world does not revolve around good for us bad for us, it is given all the dimensions what you are up to and how smart you want to be today.

What i really believe, is that it's impossible to grow above our evolutionary instinct. Our whole moral system is based on our instinct of what's good and bad for us. It's not superior intelligence, it's just the natural next step to our instinctual thinking. Hardly anything to be proud of having achieved.

But I repetitively am reading posts, That we have the ability to rise above our instincts.

My opinion is that we can't , and we won't. Because what some perceive as advance intellectual behaviour, is actually very instinctual and logicaly tied to our basic animal thoughts. I see us as having taken one small step forward by developing the intellectual ability to put ourselves in someone else shoes. And anticipating their reactions to a action we can produce.

[RB]

I am not sure of your definition of instinct (or your angle of investigation) but lets say we have 0's and 1's the lowest level in computer language we have departed so far ahead into technology. The same is true for evolution of man from every multitudinal way.

In regards to morals is different from instinct. For instance since the beginning a child suckle is an instinct that has not change but modern women can adopt their own views whether to breast feed is equal to choices they are allowed to make. The mere fact that a person chooses means that they are thinking and making decisions surely this is advancement of intellect. Moses gave us some morals to work with these are not instinct at all...

Masten S I think pointed that not everyone is ascribe a fortunate intellect. To interpret we cannot rule out a discrepancy of intellect like everyone starts at a certain intellect and some people advance

Now intellectual behavior is different

However back to the question of growing intellect beyond instincts - there are some many angles to explore this - why do you ask this question??

[Freddy]

I am not sure of your definition of instinct (or your angle of investigation) but lets say we have 0's and 1's the lowest level in computer language we have departed so far ahead into technology. The same is true for evolution of man from every multitudinal way.

In regards to morals is different from instinct. For instance since the beginning a child suckle is an instinct that has not change but modern women can adopt their own views whether to breast feed is equal to choices they are allowed to make. The mere fact that a person chooses means that they are thinking and making decisions surely this is advancement of intellect. Moses gave us some morals to work with these are not instinct at all...

Masten S I think pointed that not everyone is ascribe a fortunate intellect. To interpret we cannot rule out a discrepancy of intellect like everyone starts at a certain intellect and some people advance

Now intellectual behavior is different

However back to the question of growing intellect beyond instincts - there are some many angles to explore this - why do you ask this question??

. To feed ones baby is still a instinct that you Breastfeed or give him a bottle, It's still based on the instinct of nurturing your child. I still see it as a action based on some kind of instinct behaviour. It's also based on our instinct to make things easier for ourselves. Humans instinctively want to make things as convenient as possible.

Even if we have developed more efficient ways at providing for our basic instincts. Our instincts are still the basic needs being satisfied. We haven't evolved passed our instinct.

We have only developed more efficient ways to satisfy them more quickly

Edited September 21, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

I am debating if the ability to admit we are wrong and openly admiting it is rising above ones own instincts .

Or staying at the seen of a accident that you are at fault.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Freddy

[RB]

Freddy

That's a tough one.

If I were to argue the religious one I guess I would be guided by the values that god warn about an apple and a person disobeyed - as result he is punished, one rib taken away and he is given Eve who is a collector (she got the apple and also ate it and has the rib).

When I was a child I watch a lady go into fit and burnt novels and comic books, her human values are obviously so different from my values of love for books.

And then a moral way, since the US election is nearing we can use sensitive debate of abortion, when is the fetus a human, and whether a woman has a right to her own body to choose abort.

I guess people stand on different sides of each of these right or wrong debates and they all have perfectly good judgement in their strong values - and they are correct in their own belief.

Serious research have started to measure capital intelligence/ intellectual capital and how to manage tacit knowlege.

I could not tell you if an intellectual person with a certain high IQ would be persuaded to pick an apple especially with external influence acting on the sensibilities. Even Hawkings and Einstein cannot deny that power of adoring puzzle.

Yes I you have a dilemma

[Freddy]

Freddy

That's a tough one.

If I were to argue the religious one I guess I would be guided by the values that god warn about an apple and a person disobeyed - as result he is punished, one rib taken away and he is given Eve who is a collector (she got the apple and also ate it and has the rib).

When I was a child I watch a lady go into fit and burnt novels and comic books, her human values are obviously so different from my values of love for books.

And then a moral way, since the US election is nearing we can use sensitive debate of abortion, when is the fetus a human, and whether a woman has a right to her own body to choose abort.

I guess people stand on different sides of each of these right or wrong debates and they all have perfectly good judgement in their strong values - and they are correct in their own belief.

Serious research have started to measure capital intelligence/ intellectual capital and how to manage tacit knowlege.

I could not tell you if an intellectual person with a certain high IQ would be persuaded to pick an apple especially with external influence acting on the sensibilities. Even Hawkings and Einstein cannot deny that power of adoring puzzle.

Yes I you have a dilemma

Killing your own baby could definitely be rising above your own basic instinct. But in that case, I can't see it being a good thing. Maybe not all instinct should be ignored or forgotten.

Which raises the question why even attempt to rise above our own instinct if it has successfully brought us to where we are today?

Maybe not listening to our instinct or rising above our instinct is what's causing all the problems. I don't see any other animal causing as much problems as humans around here.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

Communism is the end of the historical process of capitalism. It's not something you create.

Capitalism is the act of asking for currency in exchange for service or product.

Communism is the act of providing a service or a product for free. And depending on others to do the same when you are in need of other services then your own.

One day a letter shows up at your door telling you to show up somewhere and you do as you are told. Or else.

The state needs more shoe makers? Well that's what your going to make. That's it that's all.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Freddy

[RB]

So starting with the quotes "I don't see other animals causing problems..." animals circuits are wired as instinctive and it's ok for a lion to be king of the jungle, stalking and take down a prey like you expect animals to behave. Even though the lion have to figure how to manage to make the kill, the instinct for food and survival is the evolution in contention.

For humans now, our cognitive abilities are far more develop and we have more reasoning skills hence we make choices, to abort or not - and some folks have very strong opinion on these matters, meaning they are deeply thinking humans about the issues or following some values (or whatever the reason) they are thinking individuals. So if I were to make a good argument of cognitive abilities the more rational or the smarter the person the further removed they are from their instinct because they are make a conscious effort to think and based on the processing of information to behave a particular way.

You can look at the paragraph above in another way, in the absence of socialization e.g. a man living with animals, without conscious effort, man reasoning instinct and reasoning ability still prevails and hence humans will still behave intelligent above the animals.

[Moonlight Graham]

One theme I often run into with some members, is that, with our intelligence, humans can rise above instincts and emotions. But how often do we succeed?

The ability dose not automatically guarantee that we do. Take smoking cigarets. For example.... How is that smarter then any other animal on earth? Based on this example we could argue that we are dumber. Our intelligence in this example has become more of a hinderance, then helpful.

With so many different opinions from so many different people, How can we honestly say humans are smarter then the average animal and will rise above primal instincts?

There's a dichotomy struggle in humans between our biological urges/instincts and using logical thought. Biological urges usually fulfill short-term wants/needs, while our internal logic can go beyond instinct to make us act the best in the medium and long-term. A good example is smoking, short-term pleasure but long-term is very bad for us. Another is food, where we derive short-term pleasure from eating lots of bad foods but long-term we gain weight and become unhealthy and unattractive.

Humans rule the earth because of our logical brain power. We're able to "rise about our instincts" and use reason to solve complex problems and prevent bad results. Some Insects will instinctively be attracted to a flame and continually fly to their deaths without ever learning, while humans can eventually learn to avoid bad/fatal behaviour.

Modern civilized society is based on long-term good results winning over short-term instinct. We may individually want to steal, kill, rape etc, but using logic we've reasoned that if we agree to set up a civil society with enforced laws banning these activities then we will all be better off. Most males may instinctively want to touch a strange woman's breasts while walking down the street, but most resist because they know it will lead to going to jail (not to mentioned losing their job, and possibly getting punched in the face by an angry boyfriend).

The ability for humans to "rise above our instincts" means that we have the potential to be complete masters of our own actions, unlike any other animal species. This is an evolutionary trait that has served us incredibly well. It means not being a slave to the urges of the chemical receptors in our brain. Sometimes our reasoned conclusions turn out wrong, but we're then able to learn, change, and adapt. Many times we can also be unsuccessful at resisting urges over logical long-term benefits, but for those who are this dumb and impulsive to ie: smoke cigarettes or eat to obesity it will mean they will die off faster and the smarter better-adapted humans will survive. Natural selection at its best.