The Instigator
eleutheria
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is human nature intrinsic?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 87705
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

eleutheria

Con

My argument is basically that "human nature" is a product of circumstance, not of intrinsic or universal qualities that humans just happen to share.

I'll elaborate on this more when someone accepts this debate.
Mike_10-4

Pro

“Human nature is a product of the intrinsic and universal qualities” relative to the physical constructal law; one of the laws in nature that created all life including us humans; where its dynamic results in the “product of circumstance,” aka evolution.

“Human nature” is to get along with each other or get along with the physical laws of nature, wittingly or not, to successfully accomplish an objective where the outcome of these events creates bio-positive feedback.

To get along, morality is the “intrinsic or universal quality” of life. For humans, “morality” and “code of conduct” are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group. Hence, the empirical “intrinsic” characteristic of: language, belief, customs, “code of conduct,” etc, found in different societies throughout the world today and recorded history.

Morality is an outgrowth of life's “unalienable Rights,” where those Rights are the animate interpretation of the constructal law, which is an outgrowth of the laws of thermodynamics.

The Science: The scientific method provides an optimal way to study repeatable patterns that may lead to discovery of a law in nature. This optimization hinges on the quality of metrology and on mankind's ability to decipher the empirical without bias. Both of these factors are fallible but over time have served us well.

The argument: The “unalienable Rights” Thomas Jefferson claimed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (US 1776)—“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—correspond to the bio-primitives found in all living systems down to the single-cell level. To exemplify, once an organism comes to (1) “Life,” it must have the (2) freedom (“Liberty”) within its domain, (3) in “the pursuit of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Underlying the time and energy expended, or the work involved, in “the pursuit of” survival, or any other objective, supports the notion that most accomplishments result in some form of chemical/electrical positive feedback or “Happiness” for humans.

Symmetry: Applying the property of Symmetry we may associate “unalienable Rights” to the physical constructal law (see YouTube titled, “The Science of Rights” at time mark: 00:05:16). The constructal law was discovered in 1996 by Professor Adrian Bejan, at Duke University in North Carolina.

Hypothesis: “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (positive feedback)” are an animate interpretation of the constructal law.

The empirical: The second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction of flow. For example, the flow from a high pressure aerosol hair spray can, travels from a high pressure (inside the can) to a lower pressure, outside the can. You never see the aerosol going back into the can. The same with temperature, the thermal flow goes from high temperature to lower temperature. And with electricity, electron flow moves from a high potential voltage taking the path of least resistance to a lowered potential. The most visible illustration of electron flow is in a lightning bolt during a storm.

This lightning bolt takes on the familiar treelike structure, exhibiting the nature of the constructal law, where pressure flow and temperature flow takes on similar treelike structures within their gradient of motion.

From those gradients, the universe is brimming with the wonders of change by the dynamics of flow. The constructal law operates on this dynamic, while guiding the freedom of flow towards the path of least resistance. As flow migrates along the path of least resistance, the outcome morphs the universe into configuration.

After the Big Bang, the flow from pure energy morphed into the elements found in the Periodic Table. From those elements, planets having atmospheric and fluid-bearing, vascularized common patterns were formed.

As this morphing continued on Earth, from inanimate to animate, resulted in vascularized, treelike patterns throughout the living universe similar to the hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities. It’s as if there is a miraculous design in nature, orchestrated by the constructal law.

Understanding treelike patterns are the footprint of the constructal law, we may search the history of governance for the ones having the most efficient, the greatest innovation, in those hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities, and in the aggregate, promoting a positive experience (“Happiness” in general).

The conclusion based on historical empirical data, the observed optimum form of governance, suggests, are the ones who embrace and protect the individual's “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government (another “intrinsic human nature”) ; coming full circle to life's bio-primitives flowing throughout nature having such reliability—and are so simple and repeatable—they can be said to reflect a universal behavior found in living nature, as Thomas Jefferson labeled these bio-primitives as “unalienable Rights,” and through science, these Rights are the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.

An additional data point by viewing the evening satellite photo comparing North and South Korea. Zooming in on South Korea there is an abundance of vascularized, treelike patterns, branching out from city centers to the suburbs extending out to the rural regions. At the border there is a sharp contrast in North Korea, where there are few vascularize treelike patterns. A simple “intrinsic” repeatable “human nature” pattern between Liberty (South Korea) and tyranny (North Korea).

Therefore, “human nature is a product of the intrinsic and universal qualities” relative to the physical constructal law; one of the laws in nature that created all life including us humans; where its dynamic results in the “product of circumstance,” aka evolution.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
eleutheria

Con

This kind of missed the context that I had originally intended, but that is entirely my fault for not making my argument clear enough. Nevertheless, I'll continue on with this:

""Human nature" is to get along with each other or get along with the physical laws of nature, wittingly or not, to successfully accomplish an objective where the outcome of these events creates bio-positive feedback. "

This definition is vague and unsubstantiated; human nature refers to the real, universally observable conditions that dictate our behavior. Your argument presupposes that these are intrinsically given to us by evolutionary instinct, and that human nature is nothing beyond a rationality - this rationality being that the pursuit of fulfilling our biological needs is the only objective thing we can morally concern ourselves with. That is NOT a universally intrinsic behavior.

I mean, look at the world today. "[G]et[ting] along with the physical laws of nature" is not our primary concern at all; we are almost entirely moreover concerned with entirely synthetic things like education, finance, and politics. That's not because it is human nature to do so (it is not implicit in man's nature to cooperate with anything other than himself), it is because our interests are manifested entirely within the sphere of our social context. What we deem necessary in survival is purely a relational, abstract thing, and THAT is the basis from which human nature takes hold.

"morality is the "intrinsic or universal quality" of life. For humans, "morality" and "code of conduct" are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct"

Morality certainly is the manifestation of what is necessary for survival, but that is where your argument is self-refuting. Morality exists as an objective rationality that is based on antagonisms which dominate our lives - that is most clearly demonstrated by the preordained struggle between Man and his sustenance. What this in turn proves, however, is that morality is just an extraction from the social sphere; the things logistically "good" and "bad" hold with them a socially accepted moral connotation - this realization is derived from the objective, but exists metaphysically.

THIS IS THE CONCRETE BASIS FOR SOCIETY - societal measures, "code of conduct," as you put it, and the likes are all just reactions to antagonisms. These antagonisms ARE NOT STATIC - they rise and fall with the ebb and flow of all civilization, and morality is nothing but the rational understanding of that.

Is morality objective? Arguably yes.

Is it intrinsic? Only insofar as the natures of antagonisms themselves remains constant (which they do not)

"Morality is an outgrowth of life's "unalienable Rights," where those Rights are the animate interpretation of the constructal law, which is an outgrowth of the laws of thermodynamics."

Morality is the concrete basis for rights. Rights are the reflections of what societal conditions are necessary in maintaining stability. A RIGHT is nothing more than a legally sanctified guarantee that exists as a derivation of a social sphere's moral standard. As I have said, these things CHANGE in accordance with antagonisms that present themselves. Rights are abstract expressions of morality; their relationship is not the other way around.

"The scientific method provides an optimal way to study repeatable patterns that may lead to discovery of a law in nature. This optimization hinges on the quality of metrology and on mankind's ability to decipher the empirical without bias.

Ah, yes, but are the antagonisms between Man and his surroundings easily analyzed?

Sure, these struggles are often real, tangible, and clearly distinguished; however, and I will reiterate this because it is crucial, they are NOT STATIC. Morality is a reaction to conflict - unless that conflict is universal, there is no concrete, intrinsic basis for which morality is derived.

I am not going to address your summary of constructal law, as that in and of itself is not relevant to this discussion (nor is it incorrect, as far as I know).

"The conclusion based on historical empirical data, the observed optimum form of governance, suggests, are the ones who embrace and protect the individual's "unalienable Rights" from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government (another "intrinsic human nature") ; coming full circle to life's bio-primitives flowing throughout nature having such reliability"and are so simple and repeatable"they can be said to reflect a universal behavior found in living nature, as Thomas Jefferson labeled these bio-primitives as "unalienable Rights," and through science, these Rights are the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law."

Thank you for including this - I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "Rights are the animate interpretation of the constructal law."

Anyway, human nature refers to the concrete, real patterns of behavior - the fact that there is a study that suggests some level of universally accepted rights is largely irrelevant to this, as these "rights" are purely relational. Whether you believe in God, evolution, or whatever, there is no source from which preordained rights come from. RIGHTS are extensions of morality, which exist as reactions to antagonisms. Why does this refute your theory?

Because the entire premise of your argument is the presentation of basic human nature (though this context does not warrant "humans" alone) as an objectively intrinsic entity. THAT is not the case; everything perceived as human nature comes from interaction, and thus "human nature" is a purely metaphysical thing. It is not concrete, and nor is it intrinsic (no matter how universally accepted it is).

"At the border there is a sharp contrast in North Korea, where there are few vascularize treelike patterns. A simple "intrinsic" repeatable "human nature" pattern between Liberty (South Korea) and tyranny (North Korea). "

Please elaborate on this in the next round. I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, so at the moment I am incapable of presenting a real response.

Basically my argument boils down to this:

You are correct in asserting that human nature is rooted in objectivity, but it is not a static, intrinsic set of behaviors that guide how we act. Those behaviors are derivations of this, sure, but human nature in and of itself gives no concrete universal parameters for how we go about these actions.

It is rooted in the objective, but exists in the metaphysical as a reflection of relationships and social antagonisms.
Mike_10-4

Pro

The title of this debate: “Is human nature intrinsic?” you say no, I say yes.

You seem to be treating “product of circumstance” as a metaphysical construct, where your argument is subject to a dialectic. In general, metaphysics is a philosophical response relative to the subtle machinery of nature until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity. Please don't get me wrong, philosophy is important, it dominates our social systems, beliefs, etc, and it embraces the flow of logic, guiding science taking the next step in the quest to understand this awesome machinery of nature. From science a progressive imagination becomes feedback advancing our philosophies, “theories,” etc; and there is no reason why this process will ever end.

For example, Thomas Jefferson's claim of “unalienable Rights,” was once a theory, or a philosophy, today, the pattern of these Rights (aka, life's bio-program) is visible in the physical constructal law and that in itself is an "intrinsic" characteristic of life which includes humans.

The "intrinsic" behavior of all life, including humans, is to improve or prolong “Life,” increase freedom (“Liberty”) within its domain, while finding the path of least resistance in “the pursuit of” an objective, and once accomplished results in positive feedback (“Happiness” for us humans); hence, the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.

The empirical I presented in Round 1 demonstrates our scientific understanding of treelike patterns are the footprint of the constructal law.
http://constructal.org...
https://www.youtube.com...

These treelike patterns are found throughout the living universe similar to the hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities; hence, the “intrinsic” nature of life and humans resulting in such patterns.

To paraphrase American astronomer Carl Sagan, “Life is a way for nature to see and experience itself.” It may be surprising to learn that humans are part of nature and are controlled by the omnipotence of nature's laws. Our tendency to think of ourselves as beings separate from nature with the ability to control events is pathetic yet characteristic. Our perceived, unlimited imaginations make the concept of confinement or control by the supremacy of nature unthinkable to the point of denial. However, denial can't change the fact that we are a product of physical nature, dependent on nature at the same time we are part of it. Therefore, the physical laws of nature are “intrinsic” to human nature.
Debate Round No. 2
eleutheria

Con

eleutheria forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Pro

Standing by!
Debate Round No. 3
eleutheria

Con

eleutheria forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Pro

Too bad eleutheria forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by eleutheria 1 year ago
eleutheria
My argument is structured more along the lines of "human nature" existing solely within a social context, wherein things like greed are learned instead of intrinsically given to us
Posted by someloser 1 year ago
someloser
Are you proposing something like the blank slate model? What do you mean by circumstantial?
No votes have been placed for this debate.