It really is very simple. Two thousand years ago there was a diversity of cultures on the various continents, their diversity maintained by isolation. For example, there is a very great difference between Australian Aboriginal culture and the Romans and between the latter and the Chinese. Today, China is very speadily adopting western culture on a competitive basis
My hasty generalisation about philosophers is clearly true. It is just that you cannot see it. And as to hasty, for anyone with their head screwed on right, it really does not take too long to spot the type and categorise it. Philosophers are people who wear their theories as they wear their clothes, taking them off and putting them on as it suits them, and to all intents and purposes there is really no very great difference between one set of clothes and another. They are all clothes.
I am concerned with truth and understanding. I do not make theories about intuition or anything else before I have experienced it and understood it. If I wish to learn how to make war I will go to war and learn in the field. If philosophers want to know about war, they will play a game of chess but it would be entirely beneath their dignity to actually go and get their hands dirty. This, unfortunately (and to their own detriment), disables them from ever understanding anything other than at a trivially simple level.
As to cognitive logic, nothing with a name will do in the real world. You are like an aeronautical engineer trying to design the wings of a plane: you will never do significantly better than a stealth fighter or jump jet etc.. Birds are achieved through evolution which is, in fact, child
The concept has been much discussed in philosophy and as my earlier posts suggested you will find it, in essence, in the likes of Descartes. The latter could not contrive a mechanism which would allow him to fully conceptualise a virtual universe but nowadays with our scientific creation of virtual realities Descartes problems can now be solved.
No, experimenting on mice is not straightforward. The problems are too numerous to list and in any case there is no need because the first one shoots the enterprise down in any case: the experiment assumes that the experimenters are obtaining a normal reaction from normal mice. I rather suspect that these are lab mice and there
As a doom merchant myself, I can assure you that your description is very wide of the mark but actually you display precisely the characteristics that have caused me to despair of our future. Your fantasies reveal you to have bought into the idea of competition. One of the fallacies that rules our world is that competition breeds excellence. This is totally wrong. The truth is, in fact, quite the opposite. Also, the current justification for this is that science has proved that the natural world is based on competition. Another fallacy.
It is the defining characteristic of competitive systems that they lead to monoculture. It is the defining characteristic of cooperative systems that they lead to diversity.
It is a remarkable difference between human culture and the natural world that human culture is becoming increasingly monocultural (democracy and the free market economy), while the natural world is, and always has been, increasing in diversity (there are more different species living in different environments now than in any previous age). In face of this stark and huge divergence, how scientists can draw any parallels between our culture and the natural world is beyond me.
So, we are heading for a monoculture, a state known to be extremely vulnerable and susceptible to disease. Also, I will not spell it out, but if you were to think about it, free of the platitudes and falsehoods you have been bombarded with since birth (such as I have pointed out above) you will come to understand how and why competition debases, rather than breeds excellence.
As a physicist, I am well aware of the difficulty many other scientists, let alone the general public, have in understanding and grasping the fundamental philosophy underlying the experimental method. I can only assure you that the psychologists are breaking all the rules and if you want to understand this, then you will have to get yourself a basic education in the scientific method, preferably from physicists. This is not arrogance, but the recognition that only physicists limit their dealings to systems that are sufficiently simple to allow clear expression of the scientific method.
These posts raise many issues. Firstly, the nature and source of aggression, secondly, the usefulness and justification for aggression and thirdly, the scientific method employed by psychologists. I will deal with each of these in the above order.
1: nature and source of aggression.
Consider the Jekyll and Hyde story. The common perception is that within Dr Jekyll, and all of us, there lurks some primitive aggressive monster that is only held in check by social mores and threat of punishment under the law. This is incorrect. Any animal that is prevented from behaving naturally will become aggressive and a monster, after all it is fighting for its life. Social mores and the law does just this to all of us. So Mr Hyde is the creation of social mores and the solution to him is to take away social mores and the law. Aggression is natural but it does not occur without reason.
2: usefulness and justification for aggression.
As indicated above, aggression occurs for a reason and occurs when it is needed. To suppress it is to suppress natural behaviour and therefore once again to only achieve an increase in the very aggression that one is trying to suppress.
When one gets angry or aggressive and one feels pleasure this is because one is doing the right thing. The aggression one feels has been inspired by some sort of attack whether verbal or physical and whether consciously perceived or not. If one did not feel pleasure when one did the right thing one would have no motivation for doing the right thing. Further the pleasure serves to tell one that one IS doing the right thing. If you display aggression and anger, for example, in order to manipulate other people, then you will get no pleasure from it because in this case it is not provoked aggression.
3: scientific method employed by psychologists.
In a nutshell, the experiment described in the article is totally misconceived and completely invalid. It treats mice as if they were simple machines on a level with bicycles. They are not. The important difference is that the components of a mouse are heavily inter-dependent and cannot be separated out in the analytical method described by the experimenters. The human body may be taken as an example. Suppose you carry out experiments on the kidney, perhaps injecting it with chemicals or electric impulses to see how it will respond. You then observe a response and conclude that this response is solely due to the chemical or electric impulses applied to the kidney. Wrong. The kidney communicates with almost every other part of the body. Do something to the kidney and every other part of the body will get to know about it, will respond in its own way, releasing a complex plethora of chemicals and electrical impulses into the body, most of which will probably be aimed at stopping the experimentor from further tampering with the kidney.
You simply cannot carry out such experiments on complex organisms. This experimental method was designed by physicists to deal with the simple world of colliding, inanimate objects. It is not valid when applied to complex interactive systems.
We can conclude that if this is typical of the experimentation carried out by psychologists we can entirely disregard all they have to say on the subject of aggression and every other emotion as well.
PS: And if I was a mouse I would get very annoyed and aggressive if I was f****d around like that!