情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则
八十一子
问世间情为何物?这个问题困扰着芸芸众生,也困扰着哲学家和生物学家。为情所困的原因千千万万,但归根结蒂是一个:在求偶过程中得不到或是失去了对方的青睐。在人类社会,在很多群体里这种“青睐”还必须是专一的,至少在表观上。如果求偶者不重视这个专一性,也就不会为情所困了。可是,如果这个求偶者的祖先也不重视这个专一性,这个求偶者也就很可能压根就不存在。因为一般地讲,求偶的目的是生产自己的后代。而配偶的专一性又是保证子女是自己的后代的必要条件。
西方现代科学家研究“情为何物”的始作蛹者是达尔文(C. Darwin)。他研究了孔雀的尾羽和狮子的项毛后指出,雄性动物的这些得到雌性喜爱的特征是它们的祖先在激烈的求偶竞争获胜的标记。达尔文并提出一个假说:雄性动物会不加选择地利用每个机会交配,以期产生更多的后代,而雌性动物会挑选较优秀的配偶,以期后代能更有效地存活。
第一个用实验证明达尔文的假说的生物学家是贝特曼(A.J. Bateman)。他在1948年发现,多个配偶的雄果蝇传下后代的机会是单一配偶的机会的三到四倍,而多配偶的雌果蝇的传下后代的机会比单一配偶的只增加了一半左右。贝特曼下结论说,不加选择地“乱交”对雄性有利,而认真择偶对雌性有利。这就是著名的“贝特曼原则”。后来人们从一些雌雄易位的动物例如海马的习性中也得到证明,那就是负责胚胎发育的一方,或者说对生产后代“投资” 较多的一方,如雄海马,对配偶会倍加挑剔,而不负责胚胎发育的那一方,如雌海马,则是“韩信用兵,多多益善”。
当然事情不是这么简单。1974年,女科学家赫尔地(S.B. Hrdy)根据她研究印度的一种猴子时的发现指出,雌猴在排卵期会主动寻求多个性伴侣。她还进一步发现,雄猴在得到新的性伴侣时,有时会杀死那只雌猴先前已有的子女。赫尔地认为,这些雌猴在排卵期增加性伴侣的目的是迷惑雄猴,使他们认为她的子女是自己的后代。赫尔地曾因为她的观点而被冠以“女权生物学家”,倍受攻謇。现在用DNA鉴定亲子关系的方法普及后,生物界关于雌性动物乱交的记录已经不是例外,而是常规了。不过,从增加后代存活机会的角度来看,贝特曼原则在这里还是适用的。
那么,“打了就跑”的游击战原则对雄性动物是不是最有利呢?答曰,未必。杜思伯(D. Dewsbury)在1979年发现,雄鹿鼠 (deer mice)需要和同一只雌鼠多次交配,那只雌鼠才会产生一种激素,促进受精卵着床。雄鼠如果频繁地另寻新欢,是不能保证有后的。况且,在可供追求的性伴侣数目有限,竟争又很激烈时,比较好的办法是设法取悦对方,维持稳定的配偶。
即便是懂得了贝特曼原则,人们依然不免为情所困,因为人和其它两性繁殖的动物一样,很多跟生殖直接或间接有关的行为都是受自己的性激素控制的。到了不被情困之日,也就是性激素油枯灯灭之时。“五十而知天命,六十随心之所欲”。到那时,作为生物学意义上的人消失了,作为社会学意义上的人,还是大有可为的。诸君不必过于灰心。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 12/07/2004
hmmm ... 看来这篇没人喜欢。不愿意把人和动物混为一谈?实际上,Sexuality 这个东西在很大的程度上控制了人类的个体和社会行为,因此许许多多社会现象都有生物学依据,只是人们不太从这个角度去想。中国社会没有科学传统,更不用说了。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 12/07/2004
不是不喜欢啊,是喜欢的,因为在cnd看过了,评论过了。
爱情就是一场化学反应,对吗?只不过我不愿意当唯物主义者,当一切都唯物了,就没有了诗意和神秘。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 12/07/2004
(c: - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
看到Susan在说Hrdy,把篇旧文顶上来凑趣。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
谁说不喜欢,我看了很多遍了,最近我有一个新的观察视角,请给我时间写出....
请老八继续,大胆再大胆地进行科学研究,青冈的文字可以拿来作你的实验室标本....
八十一子 wrote:
hmmm ... 看来这篇没人喜欢。不愿意把人和动物混为一谈?实际上,Sexuality 这个东西在很大的程度上控制了人类的个体和社会行为,因此许许多多社会现象都有生物学依据,只是人们不太从这个角度去想。中国社会没有科学传统,更不用说了。 - posted on 07/24/2009
看了这篇,感觉贝特曼原则好像是说,为了后代多多,多交有效,专一比较吃亏;为了后代多多,多交未必有用,专一更有成效。好像左右都成,看去看来,仍然是笔糊涂账。
八十一子 wrote:贝特曼下结论说,不加选择地“乱交”对雄性有利,而认真择偶对雌性有利。这就是著名的“贝特曼原则”。
情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则
当然事情不是这么简单。1974年,女科学家赫尔地(S.B. Hrdy)根据她研究印度的一种猴子时的发现指出,雌猴在排卵期会主动寻求多个性伴侣。...赫尔地曾因为她的观点而被冠以“女权生物学家”,倍受攻謇。现在用DNA鉴定亲子关系的方法普及后,生物界关于雌性动物乱交的记录已经不是例外,而是常规了。不过,从增加后代存活机会的角度来看,贝特曼原则在这里还是适用的。
那么,“打了就跑”的游击战原则对雄性动物是不是最有利呢?答曰,未必。杜思伯(D. Dewsbury)在1979年发现,雄鹿鼠 (deer mice)需要和同一只雌鼠多次交配,那只雌鼠才会产生一种激素,促进受精卵着床。雄鼠如果频繁地另寻新欢,是不能保证有后的。况且,在可供追求的性伴侣数目有限,竟争又很激烈时,比较好的办法是设法取悦对方,维持稳定的配偶。
即便是懂得了贝特曼原则,人们依然不免为情所困,因为人和其它两性繁殖的动物一样,很多跟生殖直接或间接有关的行为都是受自己的性激素控制的。到了不被情困之日,也就是性激素油枯灯灭之时。“五十而知天命,六十随心之所欲”。到那时,作为生物学意义上的人消失了,作为社会学意义上的人,还是大有可为的。诸君不必过于灰心。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
老八自己都说了, 我们还能说什么呢?
人和动物当然不同. 对于社会性的人来说, 生殖和性是可以分开的, 性的目的不一定是生殖.
比如, 嫖客找妓女, 就不是为了生孩子.
八十一子 wrote:
hmmm ... 看来这篇没人喜欢。不愿意把人和动物混为一谈? - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
Thanks Senior 8, great article! I have tremendous interest in this kind of topics lately. The male’s anxiety over gaining and controlling the valuable reproductive resource -- female -- is shown everywhere, from the Uyghur/Han conflict to Muslim women’s burqa.
八十一子 wrote:
看到Susan在说Hrdy,把篇旧文顶上来凑趣。 - posted on 07/24/2009
是啊。这篇从动物到人,即简也泛,贝特曼原则?
如果说到人,女性选择男性,男性一样选择女性。从达尔文《人类的
由来》中说的,人之女性往往有着许多动物男性的角色,比如声音甜
美(歌声),形貌之美(衣着打饰),招摇候婿。。。
动物多是雄性演的角,无论是昆虫,还是哺乳类、鸟类。
这是人类第二性征的奇特。说到选择对象,男性的审美比女性还挑剔
。比如择偶,男性肯定把女性美当作重要的要求,很少女性,或者不
愿承认,除了玛雅,把男性美提得很重。这也许是人类的异化,我这
里就是要说人类的异化。如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。
我这里补充一点人类的第二性征,性选择。
Null wrote:
看了这篇,感觉贝特曼原则好像是说,为了后代多多,多交有效,专一比较吃亏;为了后代多多,多交未必有用,专一更有成效。好像左右都成,看去看来,仍然是笔糊涂账。
八十一子 wrote:贝特曼下结论说,不加选择地“乱交”对雄性有利,而认真择偶对雌性有利。这就是著名的“贝特曼原则”。
情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则
当然事情不是这么简单。1974年,女科学家赫尔地(S.B. Hrdy)根据她研究印度的一种猴子时的发现指出,雌猴在排卵期会主动寻求多个性伴侣。...赫尔地曾因为她的观点而被冠以“女权生物学家”,倍受攻謇。现在用DNA鉴定亲子关系的方法普及后,生物界关于雌性动物乱交的记录已经不是例外,而是常规了。不过,从增加后代存活机会的角度来看,贝特曼原则在这里还是适用的。
那么,“打了就跑”的游击战原则对雄性动物是不是最有利呢?答曰,未必。杜思伯(D. Dewsbury)在1979年发现,雄鹿鼠 (deer mice)需要和同一只雌鼠多次交配,那只雌鼠才会产生一种激素,促进受精卵着床。雄鼠如果频繁地另寻新欢,是不能保证有后的。况且,在可供追求的性伴侣数目有限,竟争又很激烈时,比较好的办法是设法取悦对方,维持稳定的配偶。
即便是懂得了贝特曼原则,人们依然不免为情所困,因为人和其它两性繁殖的动物一样,很多跟生殖直接或间接有关的行为都是受自己的性激素控制的。到了不被情困之日,也就是性激素油枯灯灭之时。“五十而知天命,六十随心之所欲”。到那时,作为生物学意义上的人消失了,作为社会学意义上的人,还是大有可为的。诸君不必过于灰心。 - posted on 07/24/2009
This happens to be the topic of the lecture I listened to today. It is about two different social structures of the species: tournament vs. pair-bond. While monkeys have Tournament structure, human in modern society has Pair-bond structure in majority.
Tournament:
1. Polygamous
2. No Paternalism
3. Low male's pickiness on females. 4. High male-to-male aggression, variation.
5. High Sexual Dimorphism.
6. Female seeks good sperm.
7. No Cuckoldry.
Pair-bond:
1. Monogamous
2. High Paternalism
3. High male's pickiness on females. 4. Low male-to-male aggression, variation.
5. Low Sexual Dimorphism.
6. Female seeks good Father.
7. Cuckoldry.
xw wrote:
是啊。这篇从动物到人,即简也泛,贝特曼原则?
如果说到人,女性选择男性,男性一样选择女性。从达尔文《人类的
由来》中说的,人之女性往往有着许多动物男性的角色,比如声音甜
美(歌声),形貌之美(衣着打饰),招摇候婿。。。
动物多是雄性演的角,无论是昆虫,还是哺乳类、鸟类。
这是人类第二性征的奇特。说到选择对象,男性的审美比女性还挑剔
。比如择偶,男性肯定把女性美当作重要的要求,很少女性,或者不
愿承认,除了玛雅,把男性美提得很重。这也许是人类的异化,我这
里就是要说人类的异化。如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。 - posted on 07/24/2009
81试图从生物行为、进化角度揭示现代人的两性关系和行为,但是这似乎嫌太简单了些。或者说,人太复杂了。
人的两性关系并不完全关乎后代(儿女成人离家,后代问题基本完结,那以后两性关系恐怕更少受后代影响),甚至后代在两性关系中的重要性到底占了多少百分比,恐怕也因人而异。否则,怎么从生物角度解释选择不育的夫妻?再说,选择不育的人多是聪明、生存不费劲的人,不符合进化论的适者生存原则。
不是说我明白情是什么,只是想说,生物学最多只是提供一个面而已(虽然很重要的一个面),不能解释所有。
xw wrote:
是啊。这篇从动物到人,即简也泛,贝特曼原则?
如果说到人,女性选择男性,男性一样选择女性。从达尔文《人类的
由来》中说的,人之女性往往有着许多动物男性的角色,比如声音甜
美(歌声),形貌之美(衣着打饰),招摇候婿。。。
动物多是雄性演的角,无论是昆虫,还是哺乳类、鸟类。
这是人类第二性征的奇特。说到选择对象,男性的审美比女性还挑剔
。比如择偶,男性肯定把女性美当作重要的要求,很少女性,或者不
愿承认,除了玛雅,把男性美提得很重。这也许是人类的异化,我这
里就是要说人类的异化。如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。
我这里补充一点人类的第二性征,性选择。
- posted on 07/24/2009
Sounds more reasonable to me.
BTW, do u mean Cuckoldry?
Susan wrote:
This happens to be the topic of the lecture I listened to today. It is about two different social structures of the species: tournament vs. pair-bond. While monkeys have Tournament structure, human in modern society has Pair-bond structure in majority.
Tournament:
1. Polygamous
2. No Paternalism
3. Low male's pickiness on females. 4. High male-to-male aggression, variation.
5. High Sexual Dimorphism.
6. Female seeks good sperm.
7. No Cockoldry.
Pair-bond:
1. Monogamous
2. High Paternalism
3. High male's pickiness on females. 4. Low male-to-male aggression, variation.
5. Low Sexual Dimorphism.
6. Female seeks good Father.
7. Cockoldry.
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
Corrected. Pardon my Freudian slip. :))
夹缝 wrote:
BTW, do u mean Cuckoldry? - posted on 07/24/2009
八十一子,这样的小文也要韩信用兵哈。
xw wrote:
如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。
那不是因为生了孩子要养活么,你在里面也有较大的投资,所以就得挑剔。Susan给的两种结构也就是广种薄收和精耕细作的区别。
夹缝和Null说人和动物不同,生殖与性可以分开,但是有一点,进化是一个漫长的过程,人虽然从古代起就有各种避孕措施,但真正做到生殖与性分离不过不到一百年的事。并且这种分离本身又何尝不是精耕细作模式再进一步呢。人作为动物的原始本能并没有变。我就觉得动物行为可以解释很多人的——个人和社会——的行为。
这篇也可以和草叶写的两性竞争的线在一起看,泛交还是专一,有点儿道高一迟魔高一丈的意思。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
非常喜欢。只是论语引文应为:“......五十而知天命,六十而耳顺,七十而从心所欲,不逾矩。”
八十一子 wrote:
即便是懂得了贝特曼原则,人们依然不免为情所困,因为人和其它两性繁殖的动物一样,很多跟生殖直接或间接有关的行为都是受自己的性激素控制的。到了不被情困之日,也就是性激素油枯灯灭之时。“五十而知天命,六十随心之所欲”。到那时,作为生物学意义上的人消失了,作为社会学意义上的人,还是大有可为的。诸君不必过于灰心。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
玛雅 wrote:
爱情就是一场化学反应,对吗?只不过我不愿意当唯物主义者,当一切都唯物了,就没有了诗意和神秘。
大家都说得很有道理,用生物角度来分析人和社会有洞察之处。但还是喜欢maya说得诗意和神秘,“情”不需要解释,情不情的,写首诗抒发抒发就好了,爱专不专。 - posted on 07/24/2009
Talking about 从心所欲,不逾矩, months ago I had a “revelation” on what Confucius means: it means Freud’s ID finally makes peace with the Super Ego. From the angle of biology, it means you no longer struggle to either fulfill or suppress what your genes tell you to do.
So it makes sense to achieve this goal in the last stage of life. It is too hard to achieve it during reproduction age. The force of nature is just too strong. :))))))))
3mw wrote:
非常喜欢。只是论语引文应为:“......五十而知天命,六十而耳顺,七十而从心所欲,不逾矩。”
八十一子 wrote:
即便是懂得了贝特曼原则,人们依然不免为情所困,因为人和其它两性繁殖的动物一样,很多跟生殖直接或间接有关的行为都是受自己的性激素控制的。到了不被情困之日,也就是性激素油枯灯灭之时。“五十而知天命,六十随心之所欲”。到那时,作为生物学意义上的人消失了,作为社会学意义上的人,还是大有可为的。诸君不必过于灰心。 - posted on 07/24/2009
要谈这的话, 可能引入FREUD的EGO和ID的概念比较方便.
简单地说, 作为一个人, 他/她有原始冲动ID. 这ID的内容就是原始的性需要/进食需要/攻击其它个体的冲动等等.
另外,人还有EGO的一面, 对ID进行控制和修饰, 使人能适应人的社会.
只有在人类患有某些疾病时, ID才赤裸裸主宰人的行为. 不难理解, 这类人不会适应人类社会的
浮生 wrote:
夹缝和Null说人和动物不同,生殖与性可以分开,但是有一点,进化是一个漫长的过程,人虽然从古代起就有各种避孕措施,但真正做到生殖与性分离不过不到一百年的事。并且这种分离本身又何尝不是精耕细作模式再进一步呢。人作为动物的原始本能并没有变。我就觉得动物行为可以解释很多人的——个人和社会——的行为。
这篇也可以和草叶写的两性竞争的线在一起看,泛交还是专一,有点儿道高一迟魔高一丈的意思。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
Susan wrote:
So it makes sense to achieve this goal in the last stage of life. It is too hard to achieve it during reproduction age. The force of nature is just too strong. :))))))))
哈哈。Then it would only apply to women, not to men, no? I wonder how Confucius figured it out. Might we draw some conclusion about the old man's sex life? :) - posted on 07/24/2009
This guy has been struggling with this force of nature his whole life!
Let’s see: first of all he married a woman with zero EQ in love. When her father asked her if she wanted to marry Confucius, her answer was:” my duty is to obey whatever you ask me to do.” You can imagine how boring this marriage could be.
Then he poured all his energy in Politics. He spent a tremendous amount of time and tax payers’ money achieving one thing: teach men walk on one side of the street and women on the other side of it. This great achievement was painfully defeated when the neighboring country dispatched a royal dance troupe full of pretty girls.
Then he went to a country where the king had no interest in women at all. Things worked so well until it turned out that the king was gay. While he was packing his bags again, he wondered if he could find just one person who treasures virtue more than sex…
Then there was THE moment in history, when he rushed into the classroom after a domestic dispute. Exhausted and 30 minutes late, he let out this famous line:” there are only two types of people in this world that frustrate me the most…” you know the rest.
I am telling ya, to obtain wisdom, this man had suffered, suffered!!!
浮生 wrote:
哈哈。Then it would only apply to women, not to men, no? I wonder how Confucius figured it out. Might we draw some conclusion about the old man's sex life? :) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
Susan wrote:
I am telling ya, to obtain wisdom, this man had suffered, suffered!!!
:)
Which lecture are you studying? It sounds so familiar but I forget the details so quickly... - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
Brilliant, Susan :)
嘻嘻,阿姗,I think details aren't important, and one SHOULD forget about them as soon as one obtains wisdom. It's particularly so given what the details might reveal :) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/24/2009
It is Biology and Human Behavior: the Neurological Origins of Individuality. I knew you already listened to this. :-)
阿姗 wrote:
Which lecture are you studying? It sounds so familiar but I forget the details so quickly... - posted on 07/24/2009
夹缝和Null说人和动物不同,生殖与性可以分开,但是有一点,进化是一个漫长的过程,人虽然从古代起就有各种避孕措施,但真正做到生殖与性分离不过不到一百年的事。并且这种分离本身又何尝不是精耕细作模式再进一步呢。人作为动物的原始本能并没有变。我就觉得动物行为可以解释很多人的——个人和社会——的行为。
性与生殖的分离的确是人走向异化(异化于动物)的一个最重要的标准。人类从此有了一个新的分类——繁殖人与非繁殖人。那么,请教老八,这个分离之后,什么是激励人类繁殖的动力呢? 你看,现在生育以及之后的抚养都是代价很大的付出,那么怎么来激励人生育呢?
对这个问题,我最近找到一个突破口,希望跟诸位将这个讨论继续下去。 - posted on 07/25/2009
上面大家讨论的基本上是作为个体的人。但是个体只是群体的一部分,而群体的生存才是根本。玛雅的问题核心(繁殖人与非繁殖人)其实没有那么玄虚。这个问题可以换个方式问:为什么有些个体主动放弃自己繁殖后代的机会?例如:为什么战士为了保家卫国而牺牲自己的生命?为什么人类的大规模繁殖都发生在大规模死亡之后?选择不繁殖后代的人什么时候都有,为什么在有的社会或有些时期选择不生育的人的比例会显著增加?
玛雅的突破口在哪里?
maya wrote:
夹缝和Null说人和动物不同,生殖与性可以分开,但是有一点,进化是一个漫长的过程,人虽然从古代起就有各种避孕措施,但真正做到生殖与性分离不过不到一百年的事。并且这种分离本身又何尝不是精耕细作模式再进一步呢。人作为动物的原始本能并没有变。我就觉得动物行为可以解释很多人的——个人和社会——的行为。性与生殖的分离的确是人走向异化(异化于动物)的一个最重要的标准。人类从此有了一个新的分类——繁殖人与非繁殖人。那么,请教老八,这个分离之后,什么是激励人类繁殖的动力呢? 你看,现在生育以及之后的抚养都是代价很大的付出,那么怎么来激励人生育呢?
对这个问题,我最近找到一个突破口,希望跟诸位将这个讨论继续下去。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/25/2009
谢谢楼上各位的讨论,很受教。谢三魔王指正。居然错引了夫子语录,惭愧。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/25/2009
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/25/2009
MAYA可以把您的东西, 简单地用几句话总结一下吗?
谢谢
- posted on 07/26/2009
大规模死亡之后,嗯,如果是战争之后,非常好理解,士兵返家,当然就会花很多时间繁殖了:)如果是瘟疫之后,也好理解, 一定是劳动力缺乏,政府鼓励的结果。从前的社会没有像现在这样劳动力过剩,大家都有那么多时间上网。从前没有闲暇更无娱乐,晚上除了“嘿咻”,100年前的娱乐哪里有现在这样丰富多彩。该有人做个定量分析,分析爱迪生的发明减少了多少人口!
选择不繁殖后代不是自然人的选择。自然人选择生育跟选择性爱生活一样都是动物本能,是带来生理愉悦的,有physical pleasurable的 ,因为生育就是性活动,哺育幼童是性生活的一种,更是女性性满足的一种完美形式,哺乳就是女性的性爱活动,government or public should take off the ban over public breast feeding。
不过,话说回来,如果只是哺乳的女人才能当众袒胸露乳,也是对不哺乳女人或者少女的歧视。
八十一子 wrote:
上面大家讨论的基本上是作为个体的人。但是个体只是群体的一部分,而群体的生存才是根本。玛雅的问题核心(繁殖人与非繁殖人)其实没有那么玄虚。这个问题可以换个方式问:为什么有些个体主动放弃自己繁殖后代的机会?例如:为什么战士为了保家卫国而牺牲自己的生命?为什么人类的大规模繁殖都发生在大规模死亡之后?选择不繁殖后代的人什么时候都有,为什么在有的社会或有些时期选择不生育的人的比例会显著增加?
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/26/2009
我觉也是. 为什么人类的第二性征性选择就不符合自然选择了呢? 找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭, 这才是能说明问题的关键. 归根结底, 还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.
xw wrote:
这是人类第二性征的奇特。
我这里补充一点人类的第二性征,性选择。 - posted on 07/26/2009
Exhausted and 30 minutes late, he let out this famous line:” there are only two types of people in this world that frustrate me the most…” you know the rest.
你们这些五四青年,批林批孔小将, 看了让人摇头. 老夫子就那么一句话,黑锅背了上千年不说, 至今又受着女权的奚落. 朱熹不是已经解释得挺好的吗. 这句话中的女子=侍妾,小人=奴仆. 老夫子是在说这类人难应付. 孔子幼年丧父,是母亲一手养大的, 不可能对女性歧视. case closed.
Susan wrote:
This guy has been struggling with this force of nature his whole life! - posted on 07/26/2009
Of course 女子=侍妾, I already said it was a domestic dispute. :-O
Did I say one word about 女性歧视? I was implying that he couldn't handle them. :))))
st dude wrote:
Exhausted and 30 minutes late, he let out this famous line:” there are only two types of people in this world that frustrate me the most…” you know the rest.你们这些五四青年,批林批孔小将, 看了让人摇头. 老夫子就那么一句话,黑锅背了上千年不说, 至今又受着女权的奚落. 朱熹不是已经解释得挺好的吗. 这句话中的女子=侍妾,小人=奴仆. 老夫子是在说这类人难应付. 孔子幼年丧父,是母亲一手养大的, 不可能对女性歧视. case closed.
Susan wrote:
This guy has been struggling with this force of nature his whole life! - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/26/2009
In biology, Bateman's principle is the theory that females almost always invest more energy into producing offspring than males, and therefore in most species females are a limiting resource over which the other sex will compete. - posted on 07/27/2009
我坦白,这段话, 我没有看明白。
1。“找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭,”, ----------这话指什么?
2。“还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.”--------------------丘脑?自觉意识的起源?
st dude wrote:
我觉也是. 为什么人类的第二性征性选择就不符合自然选择了呢? 找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭, 这才是能说明问题的关键. 归根结底, 还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.
xw wrote:
这是人类第二性征的奇特。
我这里补充一点人类的第二性征,性选择。 - posted on 07/27/2009
Just some interesting footnote to woman's "动物男性的角色" in terms of beauty.
-----------------------------
Women are getting more beautiful
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Over generations, the scientists argue, this has led to women becoming steadily more aesthetically pleasing, a “beauty race” that is still on. The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans.
In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, found beautiful women had up to 16% more children than their plainer counterparts. He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
more at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6727710.ece
xw wrote:
是啊。这篇从动物到人,即简也泛,贝特曼原则?
如果说到人,女性选择男性,男性一样选择女性。从达尔文《人类的
由来》中说的,人之女性往往有着许多动物男性的角色,比如声音甜
美(歌声),形貌之美(衣着打饰),招摇候婿。。。
动物多是雄性演的角,无论是昆虫,还是哺乳类、鸟类。
这是人类第二性征的奇特。说到选择对象,男性的审美比女性还挑剔
。比如择偶,男性肯定把女性美当作重要的要求,很少女性,或者不
愿承认,除了玛雅,把男性美提得很重。这也许是人类的异化,我这
里就是要说人类的异化。如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。
我这里补充一点人类的第二性征,性选择。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/27/2009
Oh, click the link and read the comments, lots of which made me lol. - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/27/2009
二战后,医学的发展使得人口过剩,而非人口不足,成为发达国家的问题。人类性行为90%以上都和繁殖无关。以后生物工程的发展将使性交与繁殖彻底分道扬镳。另外,我怀疑人类以外的生物怎么可能知道性交与生殖的关系? - posted on 07/28/2009
1。“找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭,”, ----------这话指什么?
指人. 分水岭是指从和生殖有关的自然选择到与生殖无关的第二性征导致的性选择所发生的变化的原因是什么? 应该是心理/意识从中起了作用.
2。“还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.”--------------------丘脑?自觉意识的起源?
应该说是自觉意识形成的器官是丘脑更好些, 澄清. 不对请指出. 有兴趣聆听.
夹缝 wrote:
我坦白,这段话, 我没有看明白。
1。“找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭,”, ----------这话指什么?
2。“还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.”--------------------丘脑?自觉意识的起源? - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/28/2009
Did not read this thread until today, great! second fusheng!
浮生 wrote:
Brilliant, Susan :)
嘻嘻,阿姗,I think details aren't important, and one SHOULD forget about them as soon as one obtains wisdom. It's particularly so given what the details might reveal :) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/28/2009
I thought fusheng's statement is somehow anti-fusheng.
rzp wrote:
Did not read this thread until today, great! second fusheng!
浮生 wrote:
Brilliant, Susan :)
嘻嘻,阿姗,I think details aren't important, and one SHOULD forget about them as soon as one obtains wisdom. It's particularly so given what the details might reveal :) - posted on 07/28/2009
1. 人的生殖能力和“性能力”和人的性激素水平密切相关。第二性征是人的性激素水平的敏感指标,是性激素水平的反应。如果性激素水平缺乏, 也就缺乏第二性征。
比如Klinefelter's syndrome者雄激素水平低, 病人就呈“阉人状”;比如在诊断女性原发性闭经时,有无成熟的乳房(第二性征)就是一个重要的鉴别诊断标志。
所以第二性征明显的人, 有生育优势,有自然选择优势。(当然,BODYBUILDER例外。)
2. 按目前科学能认识的程度来看,自觉意识主要是大脑皮层的功能,丘脑本身不产生自觉意识。丘脑的主要功能只是
(1) “上传下达”:将各种感觉上传(或处理后上传)到皮层,并将皮层运动冲动下传。类似于接线员的工作。
(2) 调控人的醒觉状态。
不过不用为丘脑的功能担心,无须像俺这样钻牛角。只要知道自觉意识是人脑的功能(你肯定知道), 您的讨论还是可以继续。
st dude wrote:
1。“找到从自然选择到第二性征性选择那个分水岭,”, ----------这话指什么?指人. 分水岭是指从和生殖有关的自然选择到与生殖无关的第二性征导致的性选择所发生的变化的原因是什么? 应该是心理/意识从中起了作用.
2。“还是要研究人自觉意识的起源--丘脑.”--------------------丘脑?自觉意识的起源?应该说是自觉意识形成的器官是丘脑更好些, 澄清. 不对请指出. 有兴趣聆听.
- posted on 07/28/2009
Thanks 行人 for the discussion.
To understand anti-fusheng, one needs to understand "fusheng". I especially want to understand what you mean here by it.
I went back to read the context, and I may not understand what fusheng really meant. What I tried to second to fusheng is that it is what we came to learn/wisdom that matters, how to obtain it is no longer important afterwards, for there are many ways towards it. Further more, one should not hold on to the way that got you there.
(唉,又跑题了!)
行人 wrote:
I thought fusheng's statement is somehow anti-fusheng.
rzp wrote:
Did not read this thread until today, great! second fusheng!
浮生 wrote:
Brilliant, Susan :)
嘻嘻,阿姗,I think details aren't important, and one SHOULD forget about them as soon as one obtains wisdom. It's particularly so given what the details might reveal :) - posted on 07/28/2009
rzp wrote:
Thanks 行人 for the discussion.
To understand anti-fusheng, one needs to understand "fusheng". I especially want to understand what you mean here by it.
I had the impression that fusheng was keen on details, no? :)
I might be wrong about fusheng, but I myself believe there are usually more wisdom in details than in wisdom. I tend to think what so called wisdom usually means abstraction and consolidation. In the other hand, it also means simplification and omission. - posted on 07/28/2009
行人 wrote:
I might be wrong about fusheng, but I myself believe there are usually more wisdom in details than in wisdom. I tend to think what so called wisdom usually means abstraction and consolidation. In the other hand, it also means simplification and omission.
If it's true wisdom, then it cannot mean simplification and omission. I guess you are talking about "so-called wisdom" while everyone else is talking about Wisdom with a capital letter. :)
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/28/2009
阿姗 wrote:
If it's true wisdom, then it cannot mean simplification and omission. I guess you are talking about "so-called wisdom" while everyone else is talking about Wisdom with a capital letter. :)
Ohh, that's beyond my knowledge.
Okay, you gals continue. I will be back if I manage to catch a big W or two around the dark forest. - posted on 07/29/2009
You'd be surprised how intelligent animals can be - especially birds and mammals.
Mostly, however, they don't have to "know". They just "do". You might say they simply follow instructions from their genes.
The "separation of sex and reproduction" in modern age is only superficial. Consider the following facts and underlying reasons (reasons people don't know, not even subconsciously):
- Most men are still attracted to women with sizable breasts. This is because the infants are likely to get plenty of food, even though many women no longer breast-feed today.
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.
- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.
You don't have to think about reproduction when you have sex, but all your behaviors are governed by instructions from your genes geared toward reproduction.
We don't know. We just do, just like our ancestors back thousands of years ago.
To those who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
liaokang wrote:
二战后,医学的发展使得人口过剩,而非人口不足,成为发达国家的问题。人类性行为90%以上都和繁殖无关。以后生物工程的发展将使性交与繁殖彻底分道扬镳。另外,我怀疑人类以外的生物怎么可能知道性交与生殖的关系? - posted on 07/29/2009
老八把人和动物等同起来, 所以在类似问题上走火入魔了.
您提的几个"FACTS", 没有一个否认得了"separation of sex and reproduction" .
性和生殖的分离, 是人类的一个REALITY, 一个常识地不能再常识了的常识, 不论你喜欢不喜欢接受不接受.
例如: TEENAGERS是人类性活动最ACTIVE的年龄段, 但是TEENAGERS们的受孕率并非最高, 因为他们有意避免生殖.
例如: 妓女们每日从事性活动, 但也不是高生育人群.
例如: 人类是MONOGAMY社会, 而猴子才是POLYGAMY社会.
2009年1月23日, OBAMA在有关Rescinding the Mexico City Policy的讲话中有一段:
"I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.
"In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries,”
如果性和生殖不分开, 谈unintended pregnancies有什么意义? 谈family planning 有什么根据?
八十一子 wrote:
You'd be surprised how intelligent animals can be - especially birds and mammals.
Mostly, however, they don't have to "know". They just "do". You might say they simply follow instructions from their genes.
The "separation of sex and reproduction" in modern age is only superficial. Consider the following facts and underlying reasons (reasons people don't know, not even subconsciously):
- Most men are still attracted to women with sizable breasts. This is because the infants are likely to get plenty of food, even though many women no longer breast-feed today.
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.
- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.
You don't have to think about reproduction when you have sex, but all your behaviors are governed by instructions from your genes geared toward reproduction.
We don't know. We just do, just like our ancestors back thousands of years ago.
To those who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". - posted on 07/29/2009
不过不用为丘脑的功能担心,无须像俺这样钻牛角。只要知道自觉意识是人脑的功能(你肯定知道), 您的讨论还是可以继续。
你这是先把我从中学降级到小学,再鼓励我继续努力学习啊. 不满你说,我还以为我自学了一点大学先进的皮毛, 在沾沾自喜呢. 惭愧.
不过,我觉得你没有读xw的帖子. 我的回帖是以他的帖子为上下文的, 所以理解他的意思, 才能理解我的意思(但绝不是我的看法代表他的观点). 你说"第二性征明显的人,有生育优势,有自然选择优势", 但这和我的性选择有什么关系? 或者说一定有关系吗? 我注意到你回应81的帖, 我觉得你应该理解我的意思. 我意思是, 为什么人的性选择看中的是第二性征而不是本能地以生殖能力的自然选择作为选择. 你的意思我理解为,似乎是第二性征和第一性征没有本质区别, 就像第一性征一样, 第二性征发达的, 生育能力强. 这点我想你说的很对. 可是,这并不是我本意要讨论的事情. 我的意思也可以这么说, 即使第二性征发达也表示生育能力强, 可是人并没有意识到这一点. 用xw的话说,人在做性选择的时候异化了. 我的意思是这时候人的自觉意识了插足,造成了性选择和以生育为目的的自然选择无关, 或者准确地按照你的话说是分离.
所以才有了第二个观点, 研究人的自觉意识的重要性. 我说的是自觉意识/自我心理(但在我的第二帖中漏掉了自觉二字.如果误会是这样, 对不起). 你说的大脑皮层功能产生的是意识.是总的意识(用"总的"表达,可能不是专业术语), 也包括本能意识. 本能意识是无我的,就像动物的本能意识中无我, 所以不能把外界/自然界对象化. 意识中出现我(self)的那部分意识才是自觉意识.它来自丘脑的功能. 这是一种推测观点和研究模型. 是不是真是这样, 有待研究. 但是,有一点好像是公认的: 丘脑能不能形成人的自觉意识(还有free will, soul等等其他称呼,取决于你的背景), 是决定人和动物有本质区别的唯一地方. 对不对先不管,是继续让我留级到pre-school,还是回到中学甚至破格如大学也不重要, 首先我要说明白我的观点, 你明白我的意思.
另一线的问题下次再回.今天没有时间了.建议你先读fengzi的帖子.
夹缝 wrote: - posted on 07/29/2009
While ah-san's point of view is understanable, I think 行人 also has a good point.
"Abstraction and consolidation" are often meaningless for many who are not there. In that case, details are more useful. I was thinking about 雪MM's getting-to-know America plan. Perhaps if we the American here all give her a little details from us and around us, it will be better contribution for her quest.
行人 wrote:
rzp wrote:I had the impression that fusheng was keen on details, no? :)
Thanks 行人 for the discussion.
To understand anti-fusheng, one needs to understand "fusheng". I especially want to understand what you mean here by it.
I might be wrong about fusheng, but I myself believe there are usually more wisdom in details than in wisdom. I tend to think what so called wisdom usually means abstraction and consolidation. In the other hand, it also means simplification and omission. - posted on 07/29/2009
抱歉, 是我没看清xw的帖子。 这段我同意你的。
st dude wrote:
不过,我觉得你没有读xw的帖子. 我的回帖是以他的帖子为上下文的, 所以理解他的意思, 才能理解我的意思(但绝不是我的看法代表他的观点). 你说"第二性征明显的人,有生育优势,有自然选择优势", 但这和我的性选择有什么关系? 或者说一定有关系吗? 我注意到你回应81的帖, 我觉得你应该理解我的意思. 我意思是, 为什么人的性选择看中的是第二性征而不是本能地以生殖能力的自然选择作为选择. 你的意思我理解为,似乎是第二性征和第一性征没有本质区别, 就像第一性征一样, 第二性征发达的, 生育能力强. 这点我想你说的很对. 可是,这并不是我本意要讨论的事情. 我的意思也可以这么说, 即使第二性征发达也表示生育能力强, 可是人并没有意识到这一点. 用xw的话说,人在做性选择的时候异化了. 我的意思是这时候人的自觉意识了插足,造成了性选择和以生育为目的的自然选择无关, 或者准确地按照你的话说是分离.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
这段嘛, 原则上同意。
但细节上有疑问, (还是那句话, 这种纯技术细节的问题, 可以不用钻牛角讨论;只要知道人脑既管本能冲动, 也管自我意识就行)
1。在(中文)解剖学上有丘脑、下丘脑、底丘脑、上丘、下丘等几个含“丘”字的结构,您肯定您谈的是丘脑(thalamus)而不是其他?
2。谈意识,在精神科/心理学里, 多延用FREUD的ID/EGO/SUPEREGO三层次。俺提这的目的, 是为了和您的“本能意识”/“我(self)”找个能对应的东西, 以免大家在定义上搞糊涂了。您的“本能意识”是指FREUD的ID吗?
st dude wrote:
所以才有了第二个观点, 研究人的自觉意识的重要性. 我说的是自觉意识/自我心理(但在我的第二帖中漏掉了自觉二字.如果误会是这样, 对不起). 你说的大脑皮层功能产生的是意识.是总的意识(用"总的"表达,可能不是专业术语), 也包括本能意识. 本能意识是无我的,就像动物的本能意识中无我, 所以不能把外界/自然界对象化. 意识中出现我(self)的那部分意识才是自觉意识.它来自丘脑的功能. 这是一种推测观点和研究模型. 是不是真是这样, 有待研究. 但是,有一点好像是公认的: 丘脑能不能形成人的自觉意识(还有free will, soul等等其他称呼,取决于你的背景), 是决定人和动物有本质区别的唯一地方. 对不对先不管,是继续让我留级到pre-school,还是回到中学甚至破格如大学也不重要, 首先我要说明白我的观点, 你明白我的意思.
另一线的问题下次再回.今天没有时间了.建议你先读fengzi的帖子.
夹缝 wrote: - posted on 07/29/2009
- Most men are still attracted to women with sizable breasts. This is because the infants are likely to get plenty of food, even though many women no longer breast-feed today.
This is probably the most typical example in evolutionary psychology. Bigger breasts cause healthier off-springs, which in turn popularize the psychology preferring big breasts as well as the genes associated with big breasts.
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.
Is this a known fact?
- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.
This is an old topic discussed before. Symmetry is a rather minor factor in people's judgement regarding whether some one is "pretty".Two faces both perfectly symmetric may look very different in terms of if they are pretty. For example, a face with bigger eyes is always preferred compared to one with small eyes. Whether a face is pretty or not, e.g., big or small eyes, may have little to do with the reproductivity, but people of all different cultural and racial backgrounds seem to have similar judgments. To me, this is forever a mystery. - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/29/2009
讨论已经很高级了。可不可以问大家一个托儿所级别的问题,什么长相的男人比较帅、比较性感、比较吸引人?
我的个人偏好好像跟第几性征都没有关系,难道是被异化的太彻底了?比方说,瘦、高、皮肤光滑且古铜色,眼睛不要太大,五官端正,双手要长得漂亮、修长,说话声音要好听。。。一点儿也不觉得肌肉男性感。
- posted on 07/29/2009
gz wrote:good chance for a good set of genes.
This is an old topic discussed before. Symmetry is a rather minor factor in people's judgement regarding whether some one is "pretty".Two faces both perfectly symmetric may look very different in terms of if they are pretty. For example, a face with bigger eyes is always preferred compared to one with small eyes. Whether a face is pretty or not, e.g., big or small eyes, may have little to do with the reproductivity, but people of all different cultural and racial backgrounds seem to have similar judgments. To me, this is forever a mystery.
我觉得很多老外很喜欢亚洲人的小眼睛的,他们喜欢的巩俐、章子怡眼睛都不大。中国人最喜欢大眼睛双眼皮。异国情调。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/29/2009
雪 wrote:
讨论已经很高级了。可不可以问大家一个托儿所级别的问题,什么长相的男人比较帅、比较性感、比较吸引人?
我的个人偏好好像跟第几性征都没有关系,难道是被异化的太彻底了?比方说,瘦、高、皮肤光滑且古铜色,眼睛不要太大,五官端正,双手要长得漂亮、修长,说话声音要好听。。。一点儿也不觉得肌肉男性感。
闷骚男? :-) - posted on 07/29/2009
gz wrote:
- Most men are still attracted to women with sizable breasts. This is because the infants are likely to get plenty of food, even though many women no longer breast-feed today.This is probably the most typical example in evolutionary psychology. Bigger breasts cause healthier off-springs, which in turn popularize the psychology preferring big breasts as well as the genes associated with big breasts.
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.Is this a known fact?
Yes.
- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.This is an old topic discussed before. Symmetry is a rather minor factor in people's judgement regarding whether some one is "pretty".Two faces both perfectly symmetric may look very different in terms of if they are pretty. For example, a face with bigger eyes is always preferred compared to one with small eyes. Whether a face is pretty or not, e.g., big or small eyes, may have little to do with the reproductivity, but people of all different cultural and racial backgrounds seem to have similar judgments. To me, this is forever a mystery.
Symmetry is minor? Says who? Ever heard "五官端正" being primary for most people? Unless you prefer "歪瓜裂枣", of course. :-) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/29/2009
雪M的话,经常很附和我的胃口.我也这样认为的.加一句,鼻子要挺,很重要的男人性征.
雪 wrote:
讨论已经很高级了。可不可以问大家一个托儿所级别的问题,什么长相的男人比较帅、比较性感、比较吸引人?
我的个人偏好好像跟第几性征都没有关系,难道是被异化的太彻底了?比方说,瘦、高、皮肤光滑且古铜色,眼睛不要太大,五官端正,双手要长得漂亮、修长,说话声音要好听。。。一点儿也不觉得肌肉男性感。
- posted on 07/29/2009
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.
Is this a known fact?
Yes.
any reference?
Symmetry is minor? Says who? Ever heard "五官端正" being primary for most people? Unless you prefer "歪瓜裂枣", of course. :-)- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.This is an old topic discussed before. Symmetry is a rather minor factor in people's judgement regarding whether some one is "pretty".Two faces both perfectly symmetric may look very different in terms of if they are pretty. For example, a face with bigger eyes is always preferred compared to one with small eyes. Whether a face is pretty or not, e.g., big or small eyes, may have little to do with the reproductivity, but people of all different cultural and racial backgrounds seem to have similar judgments. To me, this is forever a mystery.
Not too sure about this one. If "五官端正" is what you mean by symmetry, then the vast majority of women will qualify and therefore will guarantee a perfect embryonic development. However, most men are attracted to the kind of facial beauty few women may qualify for. So, the reason why men favor a pretty face (not just a symmetric one) may go way beyond "perfect embryonic development". - posted on 07/29/2009
老八说的那个东西, 进化心理学里称WHR(waist-hip-ratio).
不过, 我不记得医学书(包括精神科)里有大篇幅写, 而且也没听哪个妇产科医生经常谈WHR.
关键问题在于: 不论WHR是0.7还是0.9, 大家都知道避孕这事.
所以老八的FACT(不论真假), 都说明不了问题.
gz wrote:
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.Is this a known fact? - posted on 07/29/2009
The relation between symmetry and beauty has been thoroughly documented in art thorough out history, and the idea of symmetry being one criterion in choosing mates is probably as old as all the major civilizations.
More over, symmetry in nature inspired people to better understand their surroundings, and the study of it advanced our knowledge in math, physics, biology, and a whole host of other fields.
The book The Equation that Couldn't be Solved by Mario Livio is a great read on this subject. The narrative of symmetry leading to the quintic equation to group theory is laid out in a very easy way that most people can follow it without too much trouble.
gz wrote:
- Most men are still attracted to women with sizable breasts. This is because the infants are likely to get plenty of food, even though many women no longer breast-feed today.This is probably the most typical example in evolutionary psychology. Bigger breasts cause healthier off-springs, which in turn popularize the psychology preferring big breasts as well as the genes associated with big breasts.
- Most men are attracted to women with narrow waists ("35-25-34" :-)). This is because females with slender waists have higher levels of sex hormones and are thus more readily reproductive.Is this a known fact?
- Most men are attracted to women with pretty faces, that is, faces that are symmetrical. This is because a symmetrical face means perfect embryonic development, which means a nice set of genes, which means their offspring may have a good chance for a good set of genes.This is an old topic discussed before. Symmetry is a rather minor factor in people's judgement regarding whether some one is "pretty".Two faces both perfectly symmetric may look very different in terms of if they are pretty. For example, a face with bigger eyes is always preferred compared to one with small eyes. Whether a face is pretty or not, e.g., big or small eyes, may have little to do with the reproductivity, but people of all different cultural and racial backgrounds seem to have similar judgments. To me, this is forever a mystery. - posted on 07/30/2009
Thanks for recommending the book.
Sure there are many books talking about symmetry, math, golden ratio, etc. in nature and math, from which we gain some sense of beauty. But, my point is, a pretty face is much more than the beauty of any symmetry, even in the most sophisticated and general sense. There seems to be some common appreciation of the facial beauty among all cultures, beyond any description by words or math.
tar wrote:
The relation between symmetry and beauty has been thoroughly documented in art thorough out history, and the idea of symmetry being one criterion in choosing mates is probably as old as all the major civilizations.
More over, symmetry in nature inspired people to better understand their surroundings, and the study of it advanced our knowledge in math, physics, biology, and a whole host of other fields.
The book The Equation that Couldn't be Solved by Mario Livio is a great read on this subject. The narrative of symmetry leading to the quintic equation to group theory is laid out in a very easy way that most people can follow it without too much trouble. - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
这个,从evlotionary pyschology 的角度看,现代人要过得好,更多靠脑力而不是体力。人类离靠打猎为生的时代已经很久了,而且有“四肢发达,头脑简单“的stereotype(不知道这种观点是否有现实依据,谁有数据?),故而肌肉男不那么吃香。如果是打猎时代,应该还是肌肉男抢手。
雪 wrote:一点儿也不觉得肌肉男性感。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
咳,进化论用在人类身上就是:男人要有钱,女人要能生,都是为了养育后代。
人们拼命在浪漫、灵魂、美丽、气质这些问题上做文章,说明自己与动物有异,但进化论会说,也都是为了联姻稳定,还是为了下一代。
如果仅仅用进化论解释生存理由,人生挺无聊的。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
人活着的目标就两句话:男人为女人,女人为孩子。
不过也不要那么悲观。过程还是很有趣的。
Null wrote:
咳,进化论用在人类身上就是:男人要有钱,女人要能生,都是为了养育后代。
人们拼命在浪漫、灵魂、美丽、气质这些问题上做文章,说明自己与动物有异,但进化论会说,也都是为了联姻稳定,还是为了下一代。
如果仅仅用进化论解释生存理由,人生挺无聊的。 - posted on 07/30/2009
秋子 wrote:
雪M的话,经常很附和我的胃口.我也这样认为的.加一句,鼻子要挺,很重要的男人性征.
秋子,我说完那段就后悔了。其实人的长相无非是一具皮囊,好看又怎么样,不好看又怎么样,卸去后,人都是一样的,更何况我们根本就不能决定自己的长相。可是在现实中,人们还是拿长相来为难别人、为难自己。这不是愚蠢是什么?ID和Ego的斗争,本能和自我意识的纠结。
更可悲的是,我们对于长相的看法、美丑的观念其实都不是什么free will,要么受到生殖本能隐约的控制,要么受到社会经济形态的制约,我们自己还并不一定知道。
人生真是null。挣扎的结果无非是从一个陷阱落入另外一个。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - posted on 07/30/2009
81能说说为什么有些人(而且我相信不是小数目的人),要思考“人生意义“这样的问题?从进化论来讲,这种思考似乎没有什么积极作用,甚至相反(比如一想这个问题,我偶尔会-不是所有时候-有点后悔生了孩子,虽然他们都健康、美丽、快乐也聪明)。诚心诚意信上帝的,我是觉得很有福气,不管无神论者如何看待他们。
怎么说,我好像就是不甘心,生存的意义就是生存。但信不了上帝,也别无答案。Susan说的set free,听起来不错,but so what? 如果生命的根本是生存,我们为什么忍不住要想这么多?
八十一子 wrote:
人活着的目标就两句话:男人为女人,女人为孩子。
不过也不要那么悲观。过程还是很有趣的。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
Knowing 不管是知识,知道,还是看到本质,并不会sets us free。只不过让我们的承受力更强而已。更能忍受生命。:)
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - posted on 07/30/2009
宏观地看,注意不是乐观地看,我们作为个体的生存还是有意义的,生命就是以个体的死亡来延续的。呵呵。
Null wrote:
81能说说为什么有些人(而且我相信不是小数目的人),要思考“人生意义“这样的问题?从进化论来讲,这种思考似乎没有什么积极作用,甚至相反(比如一想这个问题,我偶尔会-不是所有时候-有点后悔生了孩子,虽然他们都健康、美丽、快乐也聪明)。诚心诚意信上帝的,我是觉得很有福气,不管无神论者如何看待他们。
怎么说,我好像就是不甘心,生存的意义就是生存。但信不了上帝,也别无答案。Susan说的set free,听起来不错,but so what? 如果生命的根本是生存,我们为什么忍不住要想这么多?
八十一子 wrote:
人活着的目标就两句话:男人为女人,女人为孩子。
不过也不要那么悲观。过程还是很有趣的。
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
But there is nothing needs to 忍受 anymore. :-)
ben ben wrote:
Knowing 不管是知识,知道,还是看到本质,并不会sets us free。只不过让我们的承受力更强而已。更能忍受生命。:)
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
Robots can't set themselves free, can they?
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
Yes we can! Yes we can!
yc wrote:
Robots can't set themselves free, can they?
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - posted on 07/30/2009
有没有,就要问自己了。有没有,都别怕,问问自己,再拍拍自己:)
Susan wrote:
But there is nothing needs to 忍受 anymore. :-)
ben ben wrote:
Knowing 不管是知识,知道,还是看到本质,并不会sets us free。只不过让我们的承受力更强而已。更能忍受生命。:)
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
:))) very optimistic. ;-)
Agree with you. 生命不是用来忍受的,生命是用来享受的。;)
Susan wrote:
Yes we can! Yes we can!
yc wrote:
Robots can't set themselves free, can they?
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - posted on 07/30/2009
Teach me how to enjoy (NOT endure) illness, decline of vitality and health, deaths of our grandparents and parents, etc., all of which are inevitable as we grow older. :)
yc wrote:
Hehe, very optimistic. ;-)
Agree with you. 生命不是用来忍受的,生命是用来享受的。;)
Susan wrote:
Yes we can! Yes we can!
yc wrote:
Robots can't set themselves free, can they?
Susan wrote:
We are robots with pre-programmed packages. But once we realize this, we can start to re-program ourselves. Knowing that we are robots sets us free. (^o^)/ - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/30/2009
你很勇敢。:)
BTW,很喜欢你的诗。
ben ben wrote:
宏观地看,注意不是乐观地看,我们作为个体的生存还是有意义的,生命就是以个体的死亡来延续的。呵呵。 - posted on 07/31/2009
Null wrote:
Teach me how to enjoy (NOT endure) illness, decline of vitality and health, deaths of our grandparents and parents, etc., all of which are inevitable as we grow older. :)
yc wrote:
Hehe, very optimistic. ;-)
Agree with you. 生命不是用来忍受的,生命是用来享受的。;)
比较确切的说法可能应该是:生命是用来体验(experience)的。至于体验到如何,要看各人的心态。
Null wrote:
81能说说为什么有些人(而且我相信不是小数目的人),要思考“人生意义“这样的问题?从进化论来讲,这种思考似乎没有什么积极作用,甚至相反(比如一想这个问题,我偶尔会-不是所有时候-有点后悔生了孩子,虽然他们都健康、美丽、快乐也聪明)。诚心诚意信上帝的,我是觉得很有福气,不管无神论者如何看待他们。
怎么说,我好像就是不甘心,生存的意义就是生存。但信不了上帝,也别无答案。Susan说的set free,听起来不错,but so what? 如果生命的根本是生存,我们为什么忍不住要想这么多?
八十一子 wrote:
人活着的目标就两句话:男人为女人,女人为孩子。
不过也不要那么悲观。过程还是很有趣的。
如果生命的意义就是生存,那你又能怎么样?思考和不思考都是一样的柴米油盐的过日子。就当我们是机器人好了,就当我们没有选择,只为生命的延续而生存,反正我们所做的一切都是 pre-programmed 的,没有任何实质上的后果,这样我们不是反而能更随心所欲的去生活吗?我想这就是 Susan 一再强调的 set us free 的意思吧,也是八十一子说的,过程可以很有趣。信上帝的,就是把这个思考的负担交出去了,自己少操一份心。所以,早早 surrender 吧!
- posted on 07/31/2009
但细节上有疑问, (还是那句话, 这种纯技术细节的问题, 可以不用钻牛角讨论;只要知道人脑既管本能冲动, 也管自我意识就行)
这样的留级处理合情合理,符合实际. 如果有时间有兴趣你能深入多谈一点更好, 本人有兴趣. 说到专业人士如何把深奥的东西说的生动清楚,通俗到能让layman明白而又不失去科学的严谨性,甚至浅显通俗的表达反而把意义揭示的更深刻, 我还是很佩服81提到的写The selfish Gene 的道金斯.还有写时间演史的哈金. 不过,只是小小建议. 你不必当成责任义务. no obligation, no agenda, just information exchange.
1。在(中文)解剖学上有丘脑、下丘脑、底丘脑、上丘、下丘等几个含“丘”字的结构,您肯定您谈的是丘脑(thalamus)而不是其他?
是thalamus. 丘脑是我查到的中文翻译. 我想, 科学家之所以研究丘脑来找"我"的意识的形成,其思路是排除和逼近,倒不是解剖学意义上排除和逼近, 而是神经学意义上排除和逼近. 如果从神经学上看,是不是大脑的所有主要区域都连入(connect into)丘脑,所有的运动区又是从丘脑连出(connect out)的?
2。谈意识,在精神科/心理学里, 多延用FREUD的ID/EGO/SUPEREGO三层次。俺提这的目的, 是为了和您的“本能意识”/“我(self)”找个能对应的东西, 以免大家在定义上搞糊涂了。您的“本能意识”是指FREUD的ID吗?
基本上是对应的. 在FREUD那里已经得到了对应(意识与无意识,他把ID划为本能,属于无意识). 意识作为术语是用的比较乱. 不知道你注意了没有, 如果从科学家试图把意识现象物质化(而不是像FREUD心理学那样的纯精神现象分析)的大部分研究中, 好像都是统一用意识一词, 而把ID/EGO留给FREUD心理学专用. 意识有结构性的专门定义, 本能,self,还有其它awareness. 各个模型和方法可能有所不同, 大同小异. 当然,这也许是我孤陋寡闻的印象. 回到我们讨论的主题. 不管名称怎么叫, 搞清有"我"的那个意识最重要. 我听说过一些动物的自我识别(self recognized)能力的实验, 作为动物有没有"我"的意识的一个研究步骤. 比如,观察动物在镜子面前是否能认识之自己.有少数动物可以. 但是,我怀疑那种自我认识能力是暂时的. 睡一觉, 它们全都忘我了. 我是持"人是唯一有自我意识的being”的观点的.
同意你对81的selfish gene的说法. 对81所"着魔中邪"的selfish gene的观点我也有看法. 我感觉像老八这一代的生物学家大多都是道金斯的followers,或者思想都是道金斯的框架里. 而道金斯的selfish gene说的那些都是confirmation. 这就好比是这样的: 玛雅爱旅行,gz爱旅行,xw爱旅行,我说玛雅,gz,xw应该是B型血. 经过核实,果然是. 接下来, 玛雅没有big ego, gz 随意, xw随和, 我肯定玛雅,gz,xw是B型血. 再核实,果然是. 再接下来, 玛雅聪明,gz聪明,xw聪明, 又核实, 他们果然是. 我又进一步肯定玛雅, gz, xw是B型血. 最后, 玛雅自由散漫, gz没有纪律性,xw没有组织能力. 最后的核实, 他们果然是这样. 那么,经过这样一系列的核实, 我说我的B型血理论是科学的理论. 我觉得道金斯的selfish gene就是这样. 只有confirmation, 再加上没有testability, 其实还不符合科学的标准. 但这不是说道金斯的selfish gene是错的. 它就像B型血理论一样,有趣,有一定道理. 往往只有confirmed了但不满足一些其它标准的理论都是片面的对. 但还不是科学. 当然,我不是在教条, 科学的标准其实不是非常死的, 不应该教条刻板地去衡量. 只是, 当我们遇到这样还不符合一般的科学标准的理论时,你可以研究它,受它启发. 但是,应该始终保持一种怀疑的态度. 当然我对道金斯的写作, 那种解释方式和对进化论的深刻理解还是非常欣赏的.
The selfish gene具体的也有问题. 问题在道金斯的观点是把进化论的自然选择用在个体基因上---生存机器为了生存,选择最佳的基因. 如果真是那样,我可以想象世界到今天, 姚明是最矮的. 70岁的老太太跑的都比刘翔快. 单项成绩最出色的基因不会被选择上. 以生存为目的的自然选择的应该是一组基因, 也就是一个活生生的有机体. 是一个package,不是最佳的个体基因. 最高最快的单一基因不一定是最佳的生存选择. 这和雪妹秋妹选男人一样,她们喜欢高个细瘦男人. 但是,最后她们选择的结果,绝不是最佳高度和最佳苗条的男人.而是一个完美package的男人. 其单项指标可能不是最佳(最高,最瘦,最聪明,最…).所以,进化不应该发生个体基因水平上. 还是要回到达尔文原来的进化论,物种层次的进化. 个体基因不是自私的,也许大家也不必要太忧虑了.
夹缝 wrote: - posted on 07/31/2009
同意你对81的selfish gene的说法. 对81所"着魔中邪"的selfish gene的观点我也有看法. 我感觉像老八这一代的生物学家大多都是道金斯的followers,或者思想都是道金斯的框架里.
Really? As a matter of fact, I didn't read Dawkins until very recently, and I didn't even finish the book because once I scanned the table of content I knew what he was going to talk about.
By the way, Dawkins's mind does not have a frame. To the contrary, I think he is a very open-minded person.
For your information, Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads. :-) - posted on 07/31/2009
1。 丘脑的功能和结构, 要详细列出条目来, 这咖啡上的一页两页都不够。但是您如果觉得有必要, 我可以给个丘脑联系的简图。
至于是不是大脑的所有主要区域都需要丘脑连接呢?
答:这不一定。 比如人的嗅路,嗅觉传入通路进入嗅皮层(只含4个细胞层的原始结构)无须经过丘脑, 虽然人的嗅觉通过边缘系统(limbic system)和丘脑在功能上关联。
神经科学和解剖学不可分, 解剖学是神经科学的基础,离开了解剖, 就无从谈论神经科学, 无从谈丘脑。 心理学和解剖学/神经科学的联系不是那么紧密。 一般说的心理学家/therapist/counselor关心的是心理学, 他们不是医生, 他们不一定太熟悉神经解剖学; 而精神病学家/神经病学家是医生,他们关心解剖。
回到丘脑这个问题, 我想,您如果能把您提的“丘脑产生自觉意识”这话, 给个英文出处或提示, 可能我们大家讨论会更容易一些, 是不是?
1。在(中文)解剖学上有丘脑、下丘脑、底丘脑、上丘、下丘等几个含“丘”字的结构,您肯定您谈的是丘脑(thalamus)而不是其他?是thalamus. 丘脑是我查到的中文翻译. 我想, 科学家之所以研究丘脑来找"我"的意识的形成,其思路是排除和逼近,倒不是解剖学意义上排除和逼近, 而是神经学意义上排除和逼近. 如果从神经学上看,是不是大脑的所有主要区域都连入(connect into)丘脑,所有的运动区又是从丘脑连出(connect out)的?
- posted on 07/31/2009
心理学/行为科学上有A/B/C类人格(障碍), 这也是医学院课本上的内容。人的血型可以有A/B/C/O分类,也是医学院课本上的内容。
但是说A/B/C血型和性格有关, 确不是医学院课本上的内容。 我认为这种提法不是science, 而是folk science。 因为课本(不论心理学,还是医学)上没有这提法, 我读过的专业刊物上也没有(也许我的阅读范围有限),倒是一些八卦杂志上有。
虽这么说,但是仍然欢迎您给出血型和性格有关的科学根据, 或这种说法的出处,行吗?
st dude wrote:这就好比是这样的: 玛雅爱旅行,gz爱旅行,xw爱旅行,我说玛雅,gz,xw应该是B型血. 经过核实,果然是. 接下来, 玛雅没有big ego, gz 随意, xw随和, 我肯定玛雅,gz,xw是B型血. 再核实,果然是. 再接下来, 玛雅聪明,gz聪明,xw聪明, 又核实, 他们果然是. 我又进一步肯定玛雅, gz, xw是B型血. 最后, 玛雅自由散漫, gz没有纪律性,xw没有组织能力. 最后的核实, 他们果然是这样. 那么,经过这样一系列的核实, 我说我的B型血理论是科学的理论. - posted on 07/31/2009
谈老八的selfish gene, 我认为这题和seperation of sex and reproduction是两回事,理由前面已经说了。
另外, 要单独来说selfish gene的话, 那又是另外一题。
简单地说, 某一gene是否selfish的话题, 实际上是个uncharted area。遗传学上并无selfish gene这一定义,所以这selfish gene一词只是道肯斯自己的“哲学化”定义。
再者, 即使是从进化论的原则出发,altruism同样是符合自然选择的,因为altruism才能保证种系全体的生存。
过份强调selfish, 而忽略altruism,至少不符合道肯斯自己推崇的进化论, 也更不是人类生活的实情。
st dude wrote:
同意你对81的selfish gene的说法. 对81所"着魔中邪"的selfish gene的观点我也有看法. 我感觉像老八这一代的生物学家大多都是道金斯的followers,或者思想都是道金斯的框架里. - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
Dawkins already said the selfish genes are selfish cooperators.
夹缝 wrote:
再者, 即使是从进化论的原则出发,altruism同样是符合自然选择的,因为altruism才能保证种系全体的生存。
过份强调selfish, 而忽略altruism,至少不符合道肯斯自己推崇的进化论, 也更不是人类生活的实情。 - posted on 07/31/2009
人生就是体验,这是我年轻时的结论,这想法支撑了些年头,眼下发现不够用了,因为不想体验中年以后的old age,呵呵。:)
如果说什么日子都差不多,那么也可以说生与死也没大差别,宏观上看的确如此,但具体起来,啊,还是很大差别的。所以,日子怎么过,怎么想,还是重要的,虽然,on a grand scale,实在也是渺小的。我们还是会被futile struggle感动的。:)
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:)
阿姗 wrote:
如果生命的意义就是生存,那你又能怎么样?思考和不思考都是一样的柴米油盐的过日子。就当我们是机器人好了,就当我们没有选择,只为生命的延续而生存,反正我们所做的一切都是 pre-programmed 的,没有任何实质上的后果,这样我们不是反而能更随心所欲的去生活吗?我想这就是 Susan 一再强调的 set us free 的意思吧,也是八十一子说的,过程可以很有趣。信上帝的,就是把这个思考的负担交出去了,自己少操一份心。所以,早早 surrender 吧!
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
Can you explain this in another way?
Susan wrote:
Dawkins already said the selfish genes are selfish cooperators.
- posted on 07/31/2009
Might need check your serotonin levels. xixi
Susan wrote:
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
He said genes not only have to compete but also have to cooperate with other genes so the whole system can function well and survive and pass the copies of the genes to the next generation.
夹缝 wrote:
Can you explain this in another way?
Susan wrote:
Dawkins already said the selfish genes are selfish cooperators.
- posted on 07/31/2009
hey, why I still see you here fighting with yourself at this very moment, my dear susan ? :)
Susan wrote:
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - posted on 07/31/2009
夹缝医生这次没看清 st dude 的帖子吧。据我理解,他是拿“血型理论科学化”来说“selfish gene 科学化”,说两种“理论”其实都是 confirmation,并不是有科学根据的。
夹缝 wrote:
但是说A/B/C血型和性格有关, 确不是医学院课本上的内容。 我认为这种提法不是science, 而是folk science。 因为课本(不论心理学,还是医学)上没有这提法, 我读过的专业刊物上也没有(也许我的阅读范围有限),倒是一些八卦杂志上有。
虽这么说,但是仍然欢迎您给出血型和性格有关的科学根据, 或这种说法的出处,行吗?
st dude wrote:这就好比是这样的:
草叶医生怎么好久不见了?是不是度假去了? - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
You are right.
我再看了一遍,st dude 的帖子是您的意思。 是我自己没看清楚帖子。 再道歉一次。给 st dude 道歉。
阿姗 wrote:
夹缝医生这次没看清 st dude 的帖子吧。据我理解,他是拿“血型理论科学化”来说“selfish gene 科学化”,说两种“理论”其实都是 confirmation,并不是有科学根据的。
- posted on 07/31/2009
I didn’t say freedom is effortless, Benben. It takes practice. A bird in cage her whole life cannot immediately fly even if she is set free.
Or, on a pure mechanic level, using my robotic voice: “it takes time for my over-expanded dendritic branches in my amygdale area to return to normal.” :-)
ben ben wrote:
hey, why I still see you here fighting with yourself at this very moment, my dear susan ? :)
Susan wrote:
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - posted on 07/31/2009
如果可以这样解释,这种逻辑,实际上就是把所有的Altruism都定义为Selflessness的一种形式。
问题讨论到这份上,已经不需要科学依据了。再读Dawkins的[[selfish gene]]的科学根据,逻辑上已经是多余了。因为不论科学家发现任何Altruism行为,发现任何与Altruism行为有关的基因,Dawkins都可以用同样的逻辑把它定义为Selfishness的一种形式。俺漏了什么吗?
--------------
--------------
同时, 这逻辑游戏(或者叫文字游戏)还可以这么玩:
把所有的Selfishness都定义为的Altruism一种形式。即:Selfishnessare INDIVIDULIZED altruistism.
认为人类只有Altruism。而Selfishness行为只是个体强化自己,从而保证由个体组成的种系全体的生存的手段。
为了种系全体的生存的的最终目的Altruism, 个人生存的Selfishness是可以放弃的,就如蚂蚁群里的兵蚁一样。
------------也同样符合进化论吧?
Susan wrote:
He said genes not only have to compete but also have to cooperate with other genes so the whole system can function well and survive and pass the copies of the genes to the next generation.
夹缝 wrote:
Can you explain this in another way?
Susan wrote:
Dawkins already said the selfish genes are selfish cooperators.
- posted on 07/31/2009
SORRY,st dude。
是我没读清楚你的帖子,前面已经道歉了。 为了讨论记录的连续,这贴我没删。
夹缝 wrote:
心理学/行为科学上有A/B/C类人格(障碍), 这也是医学院课本上的内容。人的血型可以有A/B/C/O分类,也是医学院课本上的内容。
但是说A/B/C血型和性格有关, 确不是医学院课本上的内容。 我认为这种提法不是science, 而是folk science。 因为课本(不论心理学,还是医学)上没有这提法, 我读过的专业刊物上也没有(也许我的阅读范围有限),倒是一些八卦杂志上有。
虽这么说,但是仍然欢迎您给出血型和性格有关的科学根据, 或这种说法的出处,行吗?
st dude wrote:这就好比是这样的: 玛雅爱旅行,gz爱旅行,xw爱旅行,我说玛雅,gz,xw应该是B型血. 经过核实,果然是. 接下来, 玛雅没有big ego, gz 随意, xw随和, 我肯定玛雅,gz,xw是B型血. 再核实,果然是. 再接下来, 玛雅聪明,gz聪明,xw聪明, 又核实, 他们果然是. 我又进一步肯定玛雅, gz, xw是B型血. 最后, 玛雅自由散漫, gz没有纪律性,xw没有组织能力. 最后的核实, 他们果然是这样. 那么,经过这样一系列的核实, 我说我的B型血理论是科学的理论. - posted on 07/31/2009
Susan, 我懂。 一开始就知道你在说什么,故意说的另外意义上的意思。闹着玩吧。同事在烦死我。
NULL, 我的人生意义都在周末。或者说到周末,我就不想意义这回事儿了:)
Susan wrote:
I didn’t say freedom is effortless, Benben. It takes practice. A bird in cage her whole life cannot immediately fly even if she is set free.
Or, on a pure mechanic level, using my robotic voice: “it takes time for my over-expanded dendritic branches in my amygdale area to return to normal.” :-)
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 07/31/2009
This is a good one. ;-)
八十一子 wrote:
For your information, Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads. :-) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)Bateman's principleposted on 07/31/2009
再说句无关的话给楼主,你上次说语言的简陋反映思想的简陋,精辟,越来越有同感。
八十一子 wrote:
情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则 - posted on 08/02/2009
您的问题太深奥,而且每个人大约都有不同的解答。
从生物学的角度看,“存活”似乎是生存的目的。但个体“存活”的终极目标是群体的存活,也就是说,个体保存的目标是群体保存。“饮食”为前者,“男女”为后者。有些人以为生儿育女是为自家传宗接代,这个观点大错特错。生一个孩子传下两家人各自一半的基因。养个孙子则传下四家人各自四分之一的基因。几代人下来,被传下来的实际上是一个基因库。希拉莉.克林顿说得好:"It takes a village". :-)
“人生的意义”是什么?对个体(父母)而言,是让孩子头上有个屋顶,桌上有食品,让孩子长成人。对群体(村庄、部落、国家)而言,是保障本群体成员人身安全和本群体所需生存资源。
有些个体比较走运,在为家人提供房顶和食品的同时,还能有时间或机会欣赏我们碰巧在其中生存的这个宇宙,包括对自然规律和人生意义的思考。
我尊重宗教信徒,但我觉得无神论者更走运,因为他们对宇宙和人生的观察和思考都超越了“上帝假说” (the God hypothesis) 的桎梏,思想可以遨游到无边无际。
Null wrote:
81能说说为什么有些人(而且我相信不是小数目的人),要思考“人生意义“这样的问题?从进化论来讲,这种思考似乎没有什么积极作用,甚至相反(比如一想这个问题,我偶尔会-不是所有时候-有点后悔生了孩子,虽然他们都健康、美丽、快乐也聪明)。诚心诚意信上帝的,我是觉得很有福气,不管无神论者如何看待他们。
怎么说,我好像就是不甘心,生存的意义就是生存。但信不了上帝,也别无答案。Susan说的set free,听起来不错,but so what? 如果生命的根本是生存,我们为什么忍不住要想这么多?
八十一子 wrote:
人活着的目标就两句话:男人为女人,女人为孩子。
不过也不要那么悲观。过程还是很有趣的。
- posted on 08/02/2009
这话有趣, 如果DAWKINS不LEAD,为何老八要[[To those who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".]]?
---------------------
---------------------
同时, 我相信在对于DAWKINS这事上,“Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads. ”是极有可能的。
因为在对遗传学的贡献上,DAWKINS远远不比WATSON。WATSON是大师, 这是公认的, 课本有收集WATSON的内容。而DAWKINS本人在科学上并无突破和建树。
DAWKINS默默教了多年书,也没有什么遗传学上的贡献;他出名是靠[[selfish genes]]这本有争议的通俗科普读物;除此之外,DAWKINS没有任何被广泛公认接受的东西。对于一心只读圣贤书(课本)的人来说, 完全有可能不知道DAWKINS的,WHY SHOULD PEOPLE KNOW HIM?
学术上超越DAWKINS并不难。
八十一子 wrote:
For your information, Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads.:-) - posted on 08/02/2009
逻辑上来说, 这话有毛病。
the God hypothesis在科学上仍是不可证的东西,所以单纯从科学和逻辑出发,只有不可知论是“科学的”。
无神论者如果不靠信仰,是不可能相信世上无神的(因为不可证)。除非自欺欺人。
------------------------
------------------------
至于无神论者是否“思想可以遨游到无边无际”, 而有神论者是否不能“思想可以遨游到无边无际”,这只能是仁者见仁的事。
就我所知, 人的思维实在有限,太有限。 即使自己认为(以为)自己的思想“遨游到无边无际”,也还是有限。
Georges Lemaître是牧师, 一样可以“思想可以遨游到无边无际”,一样可以在BIG BANG理论上的有决定性的贡献。
中国/北韩是无神论的国家,和有信仰传统的西方相比,中国人/北韩人在科技上未必LEAD,未必比西人更“思想可以遨游到无边无际”。
---------------------
---------------------
不明白,这线为何跑题到信仰上去?
八十一子 wrote:
我尊重宗教信徒,但我觉得无神论者更走运,因为他们对宇宙和人生的观察和思考都超越了“上帝假说” (the God hypothesis) 的桎梏,思想可以遨游到无边无际。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 08/02/2009
夹缝 wrote:
不明白,这线为何跑题到信仰上去?
要我说跑到信仰上去才算切题了。本来情为何物、用情不专,meaning of life, 就是个信仰问题,前面才算跑题呢,呵呵。 - posted on 08/02/2009
这《自私的基因》八十年代初就看过,而且接触过中文翻译者(好像是北大生物系两个学生),当时很佩服这本书。现在则觉着这本书有些“泛基因化”,一切都从基因来解释。连一个人溺水,另外一个人去救,都解释为是为了保护基因,说不通吗。
夹缝 wrote:
这话有趣, 如果DAWKINS不LEAD,为何老八要[[To those who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".]]?
---------------------
---------------------
同时, 我相信在对于DAWKINS这事上,“Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads. ”是极有可能的。
因为在对遗传学的贡献上,DAWKINS远远不比WATSON。WATSON是大师, 这是公认的, 课本有收集WATSON的内容。而DAWKINS本人在科学上并无突破和建树。
DAWKINS默默教了多年书,也没有什么遗传学上的贡献;他出名是靠[[selfish genes]]这本有争议的通俗科普读物;除此之外,DAWKINS没有任何被广泛公认接受的东西。对于一心只读圣贤书(课本)的人来说, 完全有可能不知道DAWKINS的,WHY SHOULD PEOPLE KNOW HIM?
学术上超越DAWKINS并不难。
八十一子 wrote:
For your information, Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads.:-) - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 08/02/2009
这本书可谓某些科学家tunnel vision的典型。This type of scientists look the world through a tunnel, the big picture is lost.
废名 wrote:
这《自私的基因》八十年代初就看过,而且接触过中文翻译者(好像是北大生物系两个学生),当时很佩服这本书。现在则觉着这本书有些“泛基因化”,一切都从基因来解释。连一个人溺水,另外一个人去救,都解释为是为了保护基因,说不通吗。 - posted on 08/03/2009
Yeah, we have choices, but limited choices, we realize that, so? We are home free now? I wish I can achieve this "free" and euphoria feeling because I can choose doing real work or "wasting" time typing at Cafe. :)
I know I know, I have to accept the limit first. :)
Susan wrote:
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - posted on 08/03/2009
在此,进化论用不上了?:)
有些个体比较走运
未见得,不想的人可能过得很开心,烦恼少些,生存力倒更强些。
谢谢诸位的探讨。我只是认为,进化论能解释很多,但无法解释全部,用它来诠释人生及人的行为全部,总觉得什么地方不对劲。能力有限,说不所以然来。Heck, 我要知道所以然,我就没这么糊涂了。:)
八十一子 wrote:
您的问题太深奥,而且每个人大约都有不同的解答。
从生物学的角度看,“存活”似乎是生存的目的。但个体“存活”的终极目标是群体的存活,也就是说,个体保存的目标是群体保存。“饮食”为前者,“男女”为后者。有些人以为生儿育女是为自家传宗接代,这个观点大错特错。生一个孩子传下两家人各自一半的基因。养个孙子则传下四家人各自四分之一的基因。几代人下来,被传下来的实际上是一个基因库。希拉莉.克林顿说得好:"It takes a village". :-)
“人生的意义”是什么?对个体(父母)而言,是让孩子头上有个屋顶,桌上有食品,让孩子长成人。对群体(村庄、部落、国家)而言,是保障本群体成员人身安全和本群体所需生存资源。
有些个体比较走运,在为家人提供房顶和食品的同时,还能有时间或机会欣赏我们碰巧在其中生存的这个宇宙,包括对自然规律和人生意义的思考。
我尊重宗教信徒,但我觉得无神论者更走运,因为他们对宇宙和人生的观察和思考都超越了“上帝假说” (the God hypothesis) 的桎梏,思想可以遨游到无边无际。
- posted on 08/03/2009
As a matter of fact, if I can control my procrastination, I will feel euphoric. :)) Different people have different challenges. I didn’t mean to say my challenge is also yours.
Let me explain a little bit on what I meant when I said “setting us free”.
On a grander scale, as social creatures we are bound by countless rules from traditions, laws, ethics and religions. To understand that these rules may share a biological purpose would free us from blindly obliging to them.
On a daily basis, it means keeping a closer look at our perceptions. Perception is a necessary tool to help us survive by recognizing potential dangers, but it becomes so fine-tuned that it contributes even bigger pain than the dangers themselves would inflict upon us, and this also includes the perception of death.
Null wrote:
Yeah, we have choices, but limited choices, we realize that, so? We are home free now? I wish I can achieve this "free" and euphoria feeling because I can choose doing real work or "wasting" time typing at Cafe. :)
I know I know, I have to accept the limit first. :)
Susan wrote:
Actually I实践 it every minute.
For instance, at this very moment, why am I surfing the web instead of working on the project that I have to finish? Do I have the freedom to make a conscious choice for myself at this very moment?
I already know the answer, the next step is to do something about it. :)
Null wrote:
这set free是比较玄妙的,几乎触手可及,但又如云似雾。理论上明白,但还无法实践。:) - posted on 08/04/2009
丘脑的功能和结构, 要详细列出条目来, 这咖啡上的一页两页都不够。但是您如果觉得有必要, 我可以给个丘脑联系的简图。
是这样? 一页两页都不够? 那我们还是去聊政治吧.
神经科学和解剖学不可分, 解剖学是神经科学的基础,离开了解剖, 就无从谈论神经科学, 无从谈丘脑。
我说的不准确,谢谢指正. 是, 解剖学是其他学科的基础. 这里有个Thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. 它是神经脉冲从丘脑到大脑皮层再回到丘脑的一个loop. 意识在这个loop中形成. 丘脑是这个loop的origin. 我本来想表达这个意思. 也许你能把这个问题谈得更清楚.
回到丘脑这个问题, 我想,您如果能把您提的“丘脑产生自觉意识”这话, 给个英文出处或提示, 可能我们大家讨论会更容易一些, 是不是?
可以说一点. 我是间接地接触这个问题, 是从别的读物上听到这个研究动态的消息. 当然我本人对此很感兴趣. 谁又不感兴趣呢? 毕竟我们知道的心理学那些东西只是现象描述的学问,不过瘾. 现在听到科学家很有雄心和自信地直接研究意识形成的物质基础---science of conscious. 所以我也自然有兴趣跟踪这些研究. 你也许知道, 本来最早的神经学的那几个创始人就提出过丘脑是形成自觉意识的部位. 当然他们指的是整个间脑包括丘脑.后来由于XXX原因,认为不可能. 转向大脑. 现在方向又转回到丘脑.
首先, 一些新的临床现象的显示. 一种心理疾病 AED (anxious ego dissolution) , 有自我脱节的现象(ego disintegration), 就是一种sense: loss of boundaries between self and environment. 临床现象显示,AED和丘脑的新陈代谢活动增加有关. 你可以去查这些关键字 positive correlation between ego-identity impairment and the thalamic factor. 这里也有一篇MIT Press上的http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Vollenweider.html 同时,MIT的这个网站提供了很多和意识有关的科学研究的内容. 另一个临床发现是植物人恢复的临床研究.从恢复的病人看, 大脑皮层的新陈代谢在恢复过程中几乎一致,没有什么变化. 但是, 丘脑里的一种核的在恢复前后过程中的新陈代谢变化很大. 这是不是一个很重要的线索? 所谓植物人就是处于苏醒状态,但不处于意识状态. 这些植物人的意识恢复治疗手段是通过电击丘脑里的某个(些)核, 而不是大脑皮层. 这是不是又一个线索?
回到理论上说. 这种寻找意识的物质基础的理论模型中,有一种叫theory of Dynamic Core, 你可以去查. 还有同时去查 neural synchrony. 网上也有些. 链接:
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/Dynamic%20Core%20of%20Consciousness.htm
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/Thalamocortical%20system.htm
下面这个链接比较通俗, 学生写的介绍研究动态.但也都给出有关论文出处.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web3/Nosal.html 在这个链接里, 这句话, An NCC of subjectivity demands a widespread distribution of connections as well as consisting of a proposed primary site at the intralaminar nuclei, a subsection of the thalamus (7). Significantly, a "very small lesion in the intralaminar nuclei will cause irreversible loss of consciousness" while lesioning widely in most other parts of the brain leads to no such loss (4). 其中, a proposed primary site at the intralaminar nuclei, a subsection of the thalamus. 这个primary site指的就是丘脑里的某个核. 同时又介绍说, Much attention has been focused on the thalamus specifically in relation to its role as the hub of the "central relay system. 这里的NCC是neuronal correlate of consciousness, 想必你知道. Wiki也有通俗的介绍. 当然这些科学研究都有个唯物主义的哲学前提(belief): all mental states are equivalent to brain states.
下面这个是wiki book, 可能不够权威. 你看看 The Role of the Thalamus一章 (在P190)
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/pdf/2744.pdf 另一个链接http://www.web-us.com/brain/theoryconscience.htm 对丘脑的作用说的更明确, 也比较通俗.
夹缝 wrote:
1。 丘脑的功能和结构, 要详细列出条目来, 这咖啡上的一页两页都不够。但是您如果觉得有必要, 我可以给个丘脑联系的简图。
回到丘脑这个问题, 我想,您如果能把您提的“丘脑产生自觉意识”这话, 给个英文出处或提示, 可能我们大家讨论会更容易一些, 是不是?
1。在(中文)解剖学上有丘脑、下丘脑、底丘脑、上丘、下丘等几个含“丘”字的结构,您肯定您谈的是丘脑(thalamus)而不是其他? - posted on 08/04/2009
Really? As a matter of fact, I didn't read Dawkins until very recently, and I didn't even finish the book because once I scanned the table of content I knew what he was going to talk about.
读没读,读完没读完, 都不是主要的. 知识和学术思想的影响可以有多种方式. 间接的影响. 在café, 可能没有人比你更了解近三十年来人的行为(human behaviors)的生物学解释的主流观点了. 这就是个体基因生存方式决定了人的行为包括性行为. 这种生存方式用拟人化的比喻说法就是自私的表现. 自私的拟人化说法应该没有问题,道金斯也解释的非常清楚.
By the way, Dawkins's mind does not have a frame. To the contrary, I think he is a very open-minded person.
我是说他的Selfish Gene这个doctrine有frame. 道金斯的frame就是把自私的基因作为解释人我们人(survival machine)的行为的可靠根据, 就好像有人把血型当作解释性格的可靠根据一样, 什么都是血型决定的.
可这里的问题就是,他的自私的基因说法是建立在他把达尔文的进化论的自然选择(进化的driving force)锁定在个体基因这一层次上. 每个基因的生存方式是选择和复制最好的个体基因. 选择成了selection of individual gene, 而不是selection of group(selection of individual organism). 所以他才有个体基因是自私的这一说. 这就引发了自然选择导致的适者生存(fitness)在什么层次上发生. 这是一个挺重要的问题. 很多现象都不符合selection of individual gene的解释. 比如,光照对植物生长十分重要. 黑色吸收光的效率最好. 但是, 树叶为什么是绿色而不是黑色的? 如果按照个体基因选择的进化, 无疑选择使树叶趋于黑色的基因应该更有效的吸收光产生光和作用从而更有利于树木生长的.
至于道金斯作为一个open-minded 的人或者open-minded 的学者, 你们是同行, 也许你更了解他. 这我也相信你说的.
For your information, Lao Ba does not follow anyone, neither in his research field nor anything else. He leads. :-)
For your information specific to the doctrine of selfish gene, 道金斯开始写"The selfish Gene"的时候是1972年. 他 leads in this subject. You need to work harder in cafe by posting more writings on this subject to exceed him. I see you will.
八十一子 wrote: - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 08/04/2009
st dude 好。
您这段太长, 涉及很多方面的内容,如果您有兴趣, 我可以慢慢谈。
首先,我觉得我们要搞清楚“conscious”这个词的中文意思。 “conscious” 在中文里翻译为“醒觉状态的”, 和"comatose"相对应相反。 我们在临床上多用Glasgow Coma Scale来表达病人的醒觉状态。
见 http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masscasualties/gscale.aspst dude wrote: - posted on 08/04/2009
您谈“Thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits”, 估计是在谈limbic system (Papez circuit)边缘系统。(或在谈网状上行激动系统?)
如果是谈limbic system的话, 应该知道虽然limbic system和人的行为/情绪/长期记忆/嗅觉有关,但是在limbic system这个回路中丘脑(前核anterior nucleus)只是个中继站而已呀。
网状上行激动系统中(RAS,和醒觉有关),丘脑也只是个中继站。但是RAS和人类“自觉意识”谈的是不同东西, 而且RAS除了和丘脑联系外, 还和更低位的结构(延髓/脑桥)联系。
附丘脑简图一张
st dude wrote:
我说的不准确,谢谢指正. 是, 解剖学是其他学科的基础. 这里有个Thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. 它是神经脉冲从丘脑到大脑皮层再回到丘脑的一个loop. 意识在这个loop中形成. 丘脑是这个loop的origin. 我本来想表达这个意思. 也许你能把这个问题谈得更清楚. - posted on 08/04/2009
对于心理学的一些定义,多以DSM-IV-TR为准。在DSM-IV-TR有Dissociative Disorders一栏, 其下有:
Dissociative Amnesia
Depersonalization Disorder
Dissociative Fugue
Dissociative Identity Disorder
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dissocdis.htm
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
你那篇MIT的文章我看了, 没觉得和我对丘脑的理解有什么不同。
见:
1。皮层的功能, ---[["Central Neural Authority" to express the idea ]]:
Indeed, according to current views, the frontal cortex in conjunction with parietal and limbic areas, is critical for the construction and maintenance of a coherent self. In its executive faculty, the frontal cortex, including the anterior cingulate, has an active role in structuring time, directing attention to relevant extero- or interoceptive stimuli and initiating and expressing appropriate behaviors (Milner et al. 1985, Fuster 1989, Posner and Petersen 1990). The parietal cortex is important for determining the relationship of the self to extrapersonal space, based on visuospatial input from the dorsal stream (Pribram 1991). It is noteworthy that the fronto-parietal factor also includes somatosensory and motor cortical areas, which contribute essential information to the formation of body image and physical representation of the self. As an interrelated network, the areas of the fronto-parietal factor are sometimes called "Central Neural Authority" (Hernegger 1995) to express the idea that they constitute a functional system crucially involved in ego-structuring processes and the formation of a coherent self defined in time and space. Based on these theoretical concepts, it appears well plausible that overstimulation of the Central Neural Authority may lead to profound alterations of self-experience and space/time perception, as reflected by the increased OSE scores in hallucinogen-induced ASC.
2。丘脑的作用,注意--是"thalamic filter"和"thalamic gating":
Anxious ego-dissolution (AIA) and ego-identity impairment appear to depend mainly on thalamic activity. This finding is in line with the view that dysfunction of the thalamic filter could lead to sensory overload, cognitive fragmentation and psychosis, as it is postulated by the CSTC model. Interestingly, increased thalamic activity with newly exacerbation of psychotic symptoms was also observed in neuroleptic-stabilized patients after ketamine administration.
st dude wrote:
可以说一点. 我是间接地接触这个问题, 是从别的读物上听到这个研究动态的消息. 当然我本人对此很感兴趣. 谁又不感兴趣呢? 毕竟我们知道的心理学那些东西只是现象描述的学问,不过瘾. 现在听到科学家很有雄心和自信地直接研究意识形成的物质基础---science of conscious. 所以我也自然有兴趣跟踪这些研究. 你也许知道, 本来最早的神经学的那几个创始人就提出过丘脑是形成自觉意识的部位. 当然他们指的是整个间脑包括丘脑.后来由于XXX原因,认为不可能. 转向大脑. 现在方向又转回到丘脑.
首先, 一些新的临床现象的显示. 一种心理疾病 AED (anxious ego dissolution) , 有自我脱节的现象(ego disintegration), 就是一种sense: loss of boundaries between self and environment. 临床现象显示,AED和丘脑的新陈代谢活动增加有关. 你可以去查这些关键字 positive correlation between ego-identity impairment and the thalamic factor. 这里也有一篇MIT Press上的http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Vollenweider.html 同时,MIT的这个网站提供了很多和意识有关的科学研究的内容. 另一个临床发现是植物人恢复的临床研究.从恢复的病人看, 大脑皮层的新陈代谢在恢复过程中几乎一致,没有什么变化. 但是, 丘脑里的一种核的在恢复前后过程中的新陈代谢变化很大. 这是不是一个很重要的线索? 所谓植物人就是处于苏醒状态,但不处于意识状态. 这些植物人的意识恢复治疗手段是通过电击丘脑里的某个(些)核, 而不是大脑皮层. 这是不是又一个线索? - posted on 08/04/2009
这段没看原文。
不过, 看到您引用的thalamus specifically in relation to its role as the hub of the "central relay system”就够了。这“relay system”就是“中继站”的意思, 而不是“源泉”。
st dude wrote:
回到理论上说. 这种寻找意识的物质基础的理论模型中,有一种叫theory of Dynamic Core, 你可以去查. 还有同时去查 neural synchrony. 网上也有些. 链接:
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/Dynamic%20Core%20of%20Consciousness.htm
http://willcov.com/bio-consciousness/front/Thalamocortical%20system.htm 下面这个链接比较通俗, 学生写的介绍研究动态.但也都给出有关论文出处.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web3/Nosal.html 在这个链接里, 这句话, An NCC of subjectivity demands a widespread distribution of connections as well as consisting of a proposed primary site at the intralaminar nuclei, a subsection of the thalamus (7). Significantly, a "very small lesion in the intralaminar nuclei will cause irreversible loss of consciousness" while lesioning widely in most other parts of the brain leads to no such loss (4). 其中, a proposed primary site at the intralaminar nuclei, a subsection of the thalamus. 这个primary site指的就是丘脑里的某个核. 同时又介绍说, Much attention has been focused on the thalamus specifically in relation to its role as the hub of the "central relay system. 这里的NCC是neuronal correlate of consciousness, 想必你知道. Wiki也有通俗的介绍. 当然这些科学研究都有个唯物主义的哲学前提(belief): all mental states are equivalent to brain states. - posted on 08/04/2009
同样, 也是您的LINK, 见丘脑“are then relayed up into the cortex”, 还是relay中继(上行)和gate(下行)作用。
其中“Also nerve bundles from the frontal and prefrontal areas go via the basal ganglia to the thalamus where they are integrated with sensory data to help in the control of motor functions”这段是谈锥体外系,比如在谈帕金森病时就涉及这部分内容,不是谈边缘系统。
见“To summarize the thalamo-cortical system. The thalamus acts somewhat as the hub in a wheel, the spokes of which are nerve bundles traveling from the body periphery (carrying sense and bodily data) and which are then relayed up into the cortex and cortical association areas for interpretive processing.”
“At the same time there is a vast array of nerve bundles descending from the cortical areas onto the intralaminar nuclei and the nuclear reticularis in the thalamus. These descending pathways act to gate the sensory data being presented to the cortex and it is in this capacity for the cortex to control what data it is being sent at any moment that we can find the function we call selective attention. Also nerve bundles from the frontal and prefrontal areas go via the basal ganglia to the thalamus where they are integrated with sensory data to help in the control of motor functions. ”
- Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 08/04/2009
归根结蒂,对于这句话, 您能提供来源或线索吗?
st dude wrote:意识在这个loop中形成. 丘脑是这个loop的origin. - posted on 08/04/2009
Haha, I have issue of procrastination too. I do feel quite good after completing a task overdue. Weird, however, when I complete something on time, my good feeling is quite lesser to a degree.
It's decadent to contemplate life and meaning too much, I need back up a bit. :)
I like lots of your perceptions, including this perception on perception. :)))
Susan wrote:
As a matter of fact, if I can control my procrastination, I will feel euphoric. :)) Different people have different challenges. I didn’t mean to say my challenge is also yours.
Let me explain a little bit on what I meant when I said “setting us free”.
On a grander scale, as social creatures we are bound by countless rules from traditions, laws, ethics and religions. To understand that these rules may share a biological purpose would free us from blindly obliging to them.
On a daily basis, it means keeping a closer look at our perceptions. Perception is a necessary tool to help us survive by recognizing potential dangers, but it becomes so fine-tuned that it contributes even bigger pain than the dangers themselves would inflict upon us, and this also includes the perception of death.
- posted on 08/04/2009
《自私的基因》时我还在读小学。可是到了大学上生物课时时,书本里有达尔文, 有拉马客, 还有种玉米的老孟,有华生, 就是不见有DAWKINS。
来美以后,生物/生化课里有达尔文, 有拉马客, 还有种玉米的老孟,有华生, 但是仍然不见有DAWKINS。
DAWKINS的学术地位, 可见一斑。说DAWKINS在学术界可以LEAD,难免有点搞笑的味道。
DAWKINS的书,包括《自私的基因》,里面所谈到的科学内容, 有什么不是别人的吗?有什么是DAWKINS自己的吗?
况且,《自私的基因》和其他DAWKINS的书一样, 不是PEER-REVIEWED的东西,其科学性有多少, 令人怀疑。写书人人都可以写,写书不严谨的一样可以发表;但是能过PEER-REVIEWED关上学术刊物的却是要水平的。
DAWKINS出名是因为他的科学成就, 还是因为他的信仰或/和社会活动? 如果是科学成就,有谁能说说, 这DAWKINS到底在生物学上有什么贡献?
废名 wrote:
这八十年代初就看过,而且接触过中文翻译者(好像是北大生物系两个学生),当时很佩服这本书。现在则觉着这本书有些“泛基因化”,一切都从基因来解释。连一个人溺水,另外一个人去救,都解释为是为了保护基因,说不通吗。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 08/04/2009
这段时间上网太多,得歇歇了,10天2周后见, 如果这线还在。
大家玩好。
- posted on 12/02/2010
今天发现“广种薄收和精耕细作”原来还有专业术语的,在这里:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
注意最后一段,很不PC地解释东方人为什么性生活保守。:)
浮生 wrote:
八十一子,这样的小文也要韩信用兵哈。
xw wrote:那不是因为生了孩子要养活么,你在里面也有较大的投资,所以就得挑剔。Susan给的两种结构也就是广种薄收和精耕细作的区别。
如果说男人,让他象猴子或猩猩跟每个雌性
生育,打死他都不会。古代的皇帝,后宫多,也只沾染不多几个。就
一般男人,会愿意跟每个女性发生性关系?我肯定不会。
夹缝和Null说人和动物不同,生殖与性可以分开,但是有一点,进化是一个漫长的过程,人虽然从古代起就有各种避孕措施,但真正做到生殖与性分离不过不到一百年的事。并且这种分离本身又何尝不是精耕细作模式再进一步呢。人作为动物的原始本能并没有变。我就觉得动物行为可以解释很多人的——个人和社会——的行为。
这篇也可以和草叶写的两性竞争的线在一起看,泛交还是专一,有点儿道高一迟魔高一丈的意思。 - Re: 情为何物,用情不专,及贝特曼原则(八十一子)posted on 12/07/2010
r/K? "r" for rampage, "K" for kindred? :-)
这位Rushton显然不了解中国人。:-) 鲁迅说过,我们是只做不说的。:-)
Susan wrote:
今天发现“广种薄收和精耕细作”原来还有专业术语的,在这里:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory 注意最后一段,很不PC地解释东方人为什么性生活保守。:)
- posted on 12/07/2010
Don't really know what R and K stand for. Random vs. Keep? Found a comparasion on the web:
R: Unstable environment, density independent
K: Stable environment, density dependent interactions
R: small size of organism
K: large size of organism
R: energy used to make each individual is low
K: energy used to make each individual is high
R: many offspring are produced
K: few offspring are produced
R: early maturity
K: late maturity, often after a prolonged period of parental care
R: short life expectancy
K: long life expectancy
R: each individual reproduces only once
K: individuals can reproduce more than once in their lifetime
R: type III survivorship pattern, in which most of the individuals die within a short time, but a few live much longer
K: type I or II survivorship pattern in which most individuals live to near the maximum life span
八十一子 wrote:
r/K? "r" for rampage, "K" for kindred? :-)
这位Rushton显然不了解中国人。:-) 鲁迅说过,我们是只做不说的。:-)
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 八十一子
- #1 八十一子
- #2 玛雅
- #3 八十一子
- #4 八十一子
- #5 maya
- #6 Null
- #7 夹缝
- #8 Susan
- #9 xw
- #10 Susan
- #11 Null
- #12 夹缝
- #13 Susan
- #14 浮生
- #15 3mw
- #16 雪
- #17 Susan
- #18 夹缝
- #19 浮生
- #20 Susan
- #21 阿姗
- #22 浮生
- #23 Susan
- #24 maya
- #25 八十一子
- #26 八十一子
- #27 maya
- #28 夹缝
- #29 maya
- #30 st dude
- #31 st dude
- #32 Susan
- #33 maya
- #34 夹缝
- #35 Null
- #36 Null
- #37 liaokang
- #38 st dude
- #39 rzp
- #40 行人
- #41 夹缝
- #42 rzp
- #43 行人
- #44 阿姗
- #45 行人
- #46 八十一子
- #47 夹缝
- #48 st dude
- #49 rzp
- #50 夹缝
- #51 gz
- #52 雪
- #53 雪
- #54 gz
- #55 八十一子
- #56 秋子
- #57 gz
- #58 夹缝
- #59 tar
- #60 gz
- #61 Null
- #62 Null
- #63 八十一子
- #64 雪
- #65 Susan
- #66 Null
- #67 ben ben
- #68 ben ben
- #69 Susan
- #70 yc
- #71 Susan
- #72 ben ben
- #73 yc
- #74 Null
- #75 Null
- #76 阿姗
- #77 st dude
- #78 八十一子
- #79 夹缝
- #80 夹缝
- #81 夹缝
- #82 Susan
- #83 Null
- #84 Susan
- #85 夹缝
- #86 夹缝
- #87 Susan
- #88 ben ben
- #89 阿姗
- #90 夹缝
- #91 Susan
- #92 夹缝
- #93 夹缝
- #94 ben ben
- #95 yc
- #96 ben ben
- #97 八十一子
- #98 夹缝
- #99 夹缝
- #100 雪
- #101 废名
- #102 CNDer
- #103 Null
- #104 Null
- #105 Susan
- #106 st dude
- #107 st dude
- #108 夹缝
- #109 夹缝
- #110 夹缝
- #111 夹缝
- #112 夹缝
- #113 夹缝
- #114 Null
- #115 夹缝
- #116 夹缝
- #117 Susan
- #118 八十一子
- #119 Susan
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation