|
|
此文章由 zrobinson 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 zrobinson 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 zrobinson 于 2016-7-6 22:55 编辑
奇思 发表于 2016-6-24 23:36 
感谢你的回复，论点有力论据充分的观点让我很佩服！
的确Nature vs Nurture究竟哪个影响大的辩论从来没 ...
花了一段时间来写这个帖子表达我的观点。
接上次的回帖
似乎人的思想很容易被环境（外界的信息）所左右，我们不是有自由意志(free will)的吗?
如果我们考虑一个极端的情况，如果一个人从小没有在人类社会中长大，那他或她能成为一个真正的人吗？
那我们可以看以下链接去了解一下由动物养大的孩子究竟会怎样（这里面的照片是艺术加工的，但是全是来自真实案例）：
http://www.featureshoot.com/2015/10/dark-and-disturbing-stories-of-feral-children-are-brought-to-life-by-photographer-julia-fullerton-batten/
下面的内容来自以下链接：
http://www.mutualresponsibility.org/science/3-ways-the-environment-shapes-human-behavior
The most extreme case is represented by feral children. A feral child is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior, and, crucially, of human language.
Feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in human activity around them.
Oxana Malaya began her life living with dogs, rejected by her mother and father. She somehow survived for six years, living wild, before being taken into care. There are few cases of feral children who’ve been able to fully compensate for the neglect they’ve suffered.
Oxana is now 22, but her future still hangs in the balance. Have scientists learned enough from previous cases to rehabilitate?
For six years, Oxana Malaya spent her life, living in a kennel, with dogs. Totally abandoned by her mother and father, she was discovered, behaving more like an animal, than a human child.
For two centuries, wild children have been the object of fascinating study. Raised without love, or social interaction, wild (or feral) children pose the question: What is it that makes us human?”
我们不得不尝试去回答这个最基本的问题：What makes us human?
其实很久之前我就在思考这个问题，小时候读书的时候很清楚，人能使用工具，这是人类和其他动物区分的标志。但是事实真相却不是这样。
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals
你可以从以上的链接了解到很多动物制造工具，黑猩猩甚至制造简易的武器。
是不是我们的认知能力，我们的自我意识和社群意识将我们和动物区别开来，可惜还是错了。
以下内容来自此链接：
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/both-environment-and-genetic-makeup-influence-behavior-13907840
Cognition allows animals to separate themselves from the immediacy of their environment and to reflect on the past in order to solve future problems. Cognition involves the ability to make novel associations. Cognition was once thought to define humanity, or to separate humans from animals, but scientists now recognize that cognitive abilities are not confined solely to humans. Learning through cognition may be more removed from genetic constraints than other forms of learning, but cognitive problem solving ability can vary substantially among different animals within a species. Variation in ability is inherited, so at its core, there is a genetic element underlying cognitive abilities. Cognition gives animals a high level of flexibility in their social and physical environments, but even cognition is ultimately constrained by genetic limits.
One interesting aspect of cognition is that it can allow an animal to distinguish itself as a distinct identity. If an animal looks at its own image in a mirror and recognizes "self" rather than identifying the image as another animal, then some investigators interpret this as evidence of cognition. A common test is to modify the visual appearance of an animal (e.g., dying a patch of hair) and then observe the reaction of the animal to its mirror image. If it touches the dyed patch this is taken as evidence for the animal having a concept of "self." Apes, some monkey species, elephants and dolphins, all respond positively in mirror tests, supporting the idea that cognition is important in behavioral development across a broad range of animals (Plotnik et al. 2006).
Social cognition, the ability of an animal to forecast how its own actions will affect its future relationships within a social group, exists in chimpanzees (although it is more limited than in humans) and may extend to other species. In social groups without cognition, behavioral interactions are very much "in the moment," driven by factors such as dominance and family membership. Social cognition allows animals to be more calculating and manipulative in their social relationships. Chimpanzees do not appear to be mean to other members of their social group without justification, but they can, and do, exact revenge against group members that exhibit selfish behavior (Call 2001, Jensen et al. 2006).
迄今为止我所认为的最接近的答案是：
Imagination, collective imagination and collective learning
想象力，群体想象力以及群体学习的能力
昆士兰大学的一位心理学教授通过研究得出这样的结论
https://thegap.psy.uq.edu.au/book
Namely, our openended ability to imagine and reflect on scenarios, and our insatiable drive to link our minds together. These two traits explain how our species was able to amplify qualities that we inherited in parallel with our animal counterparts; transforming animal communication into language, memory into mental time travel, sociality into mind reading, problem solving into abstract reasoning, traditions into culture, and empathy into morality.
另外一位以色列的历史学家也提出相同的观点：
Homo sapiens rules the world because it is the only animal that can believe in things that exist purely in its own imagination, such as gods, states, money and human rights.
这位教授写的这本书解释得更加详细：
http://www.ynharari.com/sapiens/short-overview/
下面的内容是从下面链接中的节选：
http://www.ynharari.com/power-and-imagination/articles/the-most-important-things-in-the-world-exist-only-in-our-imagination/
How did Homo sapiens came to dominate the planet? The secret was a very peculiar characteristic of our unique Sapiens language. Our language, alone of all the animals, enables us to talk about things that do not exist at all. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death, in monkey heaven. Only Sapiens can believe such fictions. But why is it important? After all, fiction can be dangerously misleading or distracting. People who go to the forest looking for fairies and unicorns would seem to have less chance of survival than people who go looking for mushrooms and deer.
Fiction is nevertheless of immense importance, because it enabled us to imagine things collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. And it is these myths that enable Sapiens alone to cooperate flexibly with thousands and even millions of complete strangers.
At the heart of our mass cooperation networks, you will always find fictional stories that exist only in people's collective imagination. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one-another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland, and the Serbian flag. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they all believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights—and the money paid out in fees.
Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination.
The end result is that in contrast to all other animals, we Sapiens are living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and companies. As history unfolded, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as Almighty God, the European Union and Google.
想象也好，群体想象也好，这些想象的基础是大脑中的神经回路，科学家们正在努力的理解想象的生理基础，可参考下面的链接：
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/266426.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/262608.php
群体想象使得人类能够理解或者相信别人经历过但是自己没有经历过的事情或者根本不存在的事情，进而拥有了群体学习的能力，从而能够传递和积累信息，最终让人类发展到现今的文明。
将前面的内容汇总一下，以下是我的观点：
人类思想的基础是大脑中的神经回路，基因决定了神经回路的形成由外界的刺激引发，外界的刺激是人所有感官接受到的神经冲动，包括所看，所听，所感觉到的等等，这些都可以称为信息。控制人们所接受的信息（外界的刺激）可以影响神经回路的形成，从而影响人们的想法，营造出我们的共同想象，如文字，语言，国家，法律，公司和金钱。教育也好，social engineering也罢，都是通过让人们，尤其让人们从幼年开始，接受相应的信息从而改变人们的集体想象，制造出想象中的现实。这些想象的现实的作用就是让人们能够大规模的灵活的合作。
我来运用我的观点来解释我们所要弄明白的LGBTIA+和SSC
我做了一下功课去努力了解一个人是如何定义自己是LGBTIA+，除了intersex（双性人）有真正的定义，是一种真实的生理结构，其他的定义根据我的理解其实是一种社会结构的概念化，也就是一种新的共同想象，推动这些概念的人其实是想将这些变成一种社会现实，an imagined reality. 要达成目标，所能做的就是让尽可能多的人尤其是青少年来接受这些概念。
让我们来看一下课纲：
http://safeschoolshub.edu.au/common/downloads/All-Of-US-Online-Version-May-2016-v3.pdf
这里面有三个最重要的定义：
Sex（性别）：The parts of your body （身体结构）
Gender Identity（性别认同或者性身份）：How you feel（你感觉自己的性别是什么？）
Sexual Identity（性取向）：Who you like（你喜欢谁？）
Sex（性别）是现实，Gender Identity（性别认同或者性身份）和Sexual Identity（性取向）与人的感觉相关，在这些相应的教学视频中，所有这些LGBT的年轻人（除了Intersex的年轻人）只是在说自己的感觉，cool或者not cool是标准，然后建议怀疑自己是LGBT的年轻人去上minus18的网站，我也上了Quora看到了LGBT的回答者对于不接受他们身份的态度，只是一句That's their problem。 这更像是一种想象中的现实，其实并不能反映人的真实的行为，LGBTIA+更像一个社会群体的标签。
我其实有一些刻板印象，认为同性伴侣不会有亲生子女，其实他们的感觉并不会影响他们的行为，他们依然有很多种方法获得亲生子女。https://therotundaramblings.wordpress.com/making-babies-the-gay-way/
比方说transgender（变性人），我一开始认为他们会选择改变自己的身体生理结构，其实按照定义，他们或者她们只需要思想上和行为上表现的像自己认为的性别就可以了。而且根据gender fluidity，一个人不需要改变自己的生理结构就可以在生命的任何阶段改变自己的性别认同，即性身份（Gender Identity）。这种理念已经引发了美国D211学区关于一名transgender学生使用女生更衣室的权利的行政命令和与之相应的一场诉讼：http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20151015/news/151019300/
根据sexual fluidity，一个人可以在生命的任何阶段改变自己的性取向（Sexual Identity），一位美国的前参议员在与他有三十年婚姻的妻子去世后最近和一位同性伴侣结婚了：http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36127215
我在想这最终建立怎样的认知（共同想象），以下是我的猜想：
家庭的基础是婚姻，无论是法定婚姻或者事实婚姻（同居生活），婚姻的基础是两性，尽管无法从生理上改变每个人的性别和性取向，但是社会运动却可以改变人们的观念（共同想象），模糊了性别，性别认同和性取向，当这些边界被模糊后，那就意味着一个人可以自由的和任何性别的人建立家庭并且抚养孩子，最终改变家庭的社会形态，同性婚姻其实争取的是同性伴侣对孩子的抚养权以及与异性伴侣相应的财产权。这样的认知（共同想象）在西方社会已经完全形成，而且青少年接受这样的认知教育，如果社会没有大的变化，这样的认知（共同想象）无法逆转。我不得不佩服这些推动这些社会运动的活动家们，在几十年的光景里完全实现了他们的理想。
也许这只是这些社会活动家的第一步，可能正如你在回帖中所说的，“ 很多左派人士反对的是婚姻本身。觉得现代社会不再需要婚姻，只要经济部分就足够了。…生了孩子要不要锁在一个家庭的模式里也是个人选择。” 也许有一天，婚姻不再存在，家庭这个社会基本单元不再存在，当性别，性别认同和性取向被模糊了之后，也就意味着一个人可以自由和任何人相爱，自由的和任何人在一起，孩子的抚养权也会变化，也许很多人不再愿意养育孩子，这时候社会就会接过孩子的抚养权，可能是政府，可能是慈善机构，可能是其他组织结构，就像有些部落中一样，孩子由整个部落抚养。
在帖子中回帖的华人家长，包括我在内，相信现有的性观念和家庭观念是经过实践的，在大部分情况下可以确保生活的稳定和子女的健康成长。而现在推行的这些观念并不会使年轻人的生活变得更加美好。
所以说，对于SSC，这些帖子中争论其实观点（共同想象）之争，没有对错，但是将来的时代是年轻人的，年轻人的选择决定了将来社会的形态，但是现在看来华人家长的观点无法像SSC中的观点一样能在年轻人中间获得同样的影响力，说到底，真正弱势的是给政府纳税来资助SSC项目的家长们。其实对于你们而言，你们有很多选择，其实也是毫无选择，家长认同的选择显得过时，年轻人希望和上一代人有所区分，就像六七十年代拥有理想主义的年轻人一样为了心中的理想走上了不同的道路，你们也许想秉承不同的生活信念。
“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”
Mahatma Gandhi
现在再讨论一些你回帖中的其他问题
对于生育的看法，你在回帖中说：“ 但如果教育的基础是鼓励生育繁衍，这无疑对无法生育者（除了LGBT，还有生理无法生育者）是有伤害的。是否生育，甚至是否有情感伴侣，都是个人的选择，这其中变数很多。如果人类的本性是想要繁衍的，那么自然大部分会想要去生孩子。生了孩子要不要锁在一个家庭的模式里也是个人选择。”
我的回答如下：
世界上没有绝对的公平可言，一代人不生育，整个人类就自我灭绝了。一些国家已经遇到了低出生率的问题，他们都在想尽办法去提高出生率，https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan 你可以从中知道低生育率所造成的后果，其实澳洲的生育率已经低于人口世代替代所要求的出生率，政策上也是鼓励生育的，https://aifs.gov.au/publications/fertility-and-family-policy-australia/summary，你可以参考前面的链接。
你在回帖中说“ 就像现在的世界正在因为我们得到的便利而需要去保护地球，不要让地球走向毁灭一样。难道因为现在的危险，我们可以理直气壮地说，当时的科技发展都是错误的么？ ”
我的回答如下：
对于地球和科技，你有很大的误解，地球的生存和毁灭，人类还没有办法影响，人类只是影响的我们赖以生存的生物圈，我们可以毁灭我们赖以生存的生物圈，但是毁灭不了地球，而且地球也不会在乎人类，迄今为止，地球上已经有过五次生物大灭绝，人类毁灭了生物圈，对于地球而言，只不过是另外一次生物大灭绝而已。
科技发展没有正确和错误而言，人类能够现在生存得这么好，正是因为科技的发展，但是在自然的伟力前，人类还是无力的，海啸，台风，洪水，地震，火山喷发，人类只是能够避灾以及做到更好的灾难救护而已，甚至很多时候还不能做到，在我看来，现在在人类通力合作下，唯一制止的灾难就是饥荒（当然有些国家还会有这个问题，但这不是全球粮食生产不足引起的问题）。我们只是在挣扎求生，看上去人类生存很好，但能不能避免像恐龙一样的命运，还是未知，如果将宇宙的历史压缩在一天内的话，恐龙是在一天结束前19分钟出现的，在一天结束前6分钟被陨石灭绝的，只存在了13分钟，我们人类是在一天结束前最后四秒才出现的，还不知道能生存多久。你可以看看这个网站https://www.bighistoryproject.com/home 里的内容，从一个大的时间尺度来了解我们人类自身。
“The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations.”
Robert A. Heinlein |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
陈年旧事系列1 (2006-4-2) SuiYi 
楼主:奇思
发表于 2016-6-28 12:14
对于我们华人来说你搞谁都不能搞孩子。
