On the matter of bonds

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

All creatures form bonds, It is the bond itself or the compilations of bonds that I wish to explore.
We know that bonds are evident in our species and most other species on this world.
Creatures form packs, herds, prides, pods, families, groups, hives, schools, towns etc.
Animals form the above bonds. Humans take it even further with work, spiritual beliefs, political beliefs, common experiences, knowledge, interests, etc…
There are permanent bonds, temporary bonds and bonds that are semi permanent.
Questions to ask about bonds;
What are common factors about all bonds
Do bonds use emotions or do emotions use bonds
Are more then just emotions needed to bond effectively
Are bonds a part of survival needs or instinct
How do bonds form
How do cross species bonds form
Can one creature feel a bond towards another of same species or other species and the receipeint not have any bond towards the first creature. If so why
Are bonds a tangible part of earth’s creatures on a physical biology not mental
If bonds are based upon emotions are emotions a part of physical biology not mental
Is a bond the result of parts making a whole or is it a separate thing.
Instinct or result

I think exploring the common connections or possible connections with bonds is the best place to start.

List of common known bonds and whether it appears in other creatures besides humans permenant or temporary
Spousal creatures and human both have permanent and temporary
Parent /child ditto ditto
Sibling ditto ditto
Companion ditto ditto
Extended blood ditto ditto
family
Extended non ditto ditto
blood family
Cross species / ditto ditto
pets or companion
Hierarchy ditto temporary in both
Survival needs ditto both have permanent and temporary
Work/using another to survive

Now we as humans believe that we are the sole users of religious bonds/beliefs, interests and experience, knowledge bonds. Animals do have their own political bonds in their species when they form groups. Politics falls, I feel, under hierarchy.
We know that any species can have multiple bonds at any given time. So that presents a question ; what if any common factor/s do existing bonds in a creature have?

We know that bonding has emotional and physical needs fulfilled. Do all bonds require both? We know that bonds can be temporary or permanent. Now can a temporary bond be as strong as a permanent bond? Or fluctuates or is it always weaker. We also know that to fully explain bonds we must use our brethren creatures to help.

The higher the intelligence the more types of bonds appear. There are carnivors, herbivores and omnivors that form higher intelligence. Of which, does the most higher intelligence appear? To my knowledge, I see omnivores as having the most species with higher intelligence. We must count the water creatures, they are part of this.
Now here comes a controversial aspect. Sentience, when a species is capable of forming more then one or two types of bonds, such as, family companion etc. Be they permanent or temporary, could they be sentient or evolving sentience.
That is a very good reason to explore what in the heck is bonding.
Once we can define or know is it possible to control bonds to a greater degree then now.
Controlling bonds will have both negative and positive effects. So should we do this? Yes . The positive outweighs the negative by a huge amount.
Controlling bonds can help prevent crimes, wars, chemical abuse, abuse, help rehabilitating criminals or certain mentally disturbed. It can bring humanity to rise above hatreds, poverty, it can aid in many parts of our societies and the world.

Emotion and physical need, both are core elements involved with bonds. Bonds can be made with just one of those. Are these types of bonds predomintaly permanent or temporary

We know that bonding can occur with just being in the presence of another. Examples:
When picking out a companion animal out of multiple animals present, Adoption of children,. Blind dates, to name a few. These bonds are formed at that time without ever having known the other creature. No emotions are present or even physical need, just the laying of eyes and the knowing that the other creature is a part of your life. Just what the heck is that thing that pops up and changes our lives seemingly instantaneous.

How is it that strangers that never met or never will meet, feel bonded towards someone that has the same profession they will protect that stranger to certain degrees.

That is one thing that bonding does, it causes you to protect your bond. It can cause you to commit crimes or stop them. It can cause you to kill or harm, It has started wars. It can cause you to lie, cheat etc It can cause you to go against what you think of as your own nature. Lets say persons A and B have a bond person A starts abusing person B. Person C comes in to defend person B by being aggressive towards person A . Person B , the vast majority of the time will jump to the defense of person A. That is some bond is it not?
Honor, pride, love, caring, respect = protective bond?
Fear, anger, hatred, plus? = ? bond? A type of survival bond?

Strength of similar bonds vary too example: you can feel a stronger bond towards one particular sib over another. Or even parents can do this with their children. Is it stronger though or is it multiple bonds forming a stronger link or chain and if it is reciprocated how much stronger. Hmm, what if it is multiple bonds and what if all the bonds are reciprocated in the exact same way? Crap there goes my mind just a leaping and a jumping. What an interesting possibility.
How to distinguish if bonds causes emotions and or needs or if it is a result of emotions or needs?
Controversial; is the ability to bond part of senses? Should it be classified as the 6th sense? We know that not all humans have the ability to bond either at all or easily. The same with other creatures. Is bonding empathy? Are they one in the same? Or different?. Or is bonding a part of empathy or visa versa? Well, we know we feel bonds. Do we sense it or is it a sense?

I await input and or revisions . I know it is not organized properly nor is it complete. But it sure can cause you to think Any input is welcome.

I haven’t even touched upon negative or controversial bonds but, they are as valid as the positive bonds

2

Kriswest,

You struck upon something that I hadn’t even thought of earlier.

Bond linking. It makes things more difficult to organize, but it qualifies a different parameter.

Perhaps in attempting to look at a single bond, there is an error, because perhaps no bond exists in a vacuum, even if that is how it is perceived.

Thinking …

3

Kris,

Wow. Any chance you could narrow this down just a bit? It would take an encyclopedia just to get past a couple of sentences.

JT

4

:astonished: Well I did say I hadn’t organized nor completed, JT. Narrow what down or how? Is it too wordy? Or not clear or what.
I will attempt what you suggest but, I apologize I am unclear as to the suggestion’s meaning.

5

Hi Kris,

No, it is a bold undertaking but the issue of ‘bonding’ covers everything from multicelled colonies to humans. It is sort of like asking for a theory of everything. Bonding cannot not be separated from environment, and with such a broad field, one either does the Encyclopedia Brittannica or says a little about nothing.

Perhaps it’s just me looking deeper than I should, but the discussion of bonding between mother and baby rats could take volumes let alone humans.

I’m not explaining very well. I’ll see if maybe Tab can explain it a little better.

6

Will have a think - Though I was trying to put the Dawkins down and step away. Anyway - [[size=75]grumble grumble[/size]] Kris didn’t like my “what are we” story. :cry:

7

Mind if I share my side of this?

A “bond” is like business or trade. What is given as payment or purchased–is sensation, material, terratory, logical–emotional or physical gratification, etc. Repeated exchange builds up memory and expectation, which become attachment.

One person’s emotional gratification could mean the other persons logical gratification. One person gives 1 sort of attention/support, and the other gives another kind.

One of the main errors of some love-cravings souls:
Expecting to get what you give.

Most often you get something other then what you’ve given, just like trade and economics.

I basically understand the main principal of bond entirely, so what is the specific or single main issue? There can be bonds between two different species.

Ex:
Ape at zoo that has a pet kitten. She holds it carefully and tenderly, is capable of “love”, and the cat has the sorts of friendly-nice-pet attitudes towards the ape. What’s funny about all this is how some people think that they draw some sort of non-existent line between “animal” and “man”.

The nitch of parental instincts and other social instincts like that–these leave room for things like pet cats, surely. It’s actually a bit sad that we have such a small number of social protocalls instinctively available to us, and so many things have to fit into the view.

8

Tab, I am too interested in this;

in fact , that subject in philosophy is worming it’s way into my thoughts here, kind of a jumbled eureka AhHa sort of thing, right now.

Both are feeling like puzzles that are begging to be put together in my head. If you could expand the thoughts for both for this dense brain of mine I would be ever so grateful. Pleeeeaasse.
[size=59]( gads wheedleing and begging is hard, I hope don’t have to stroke his ego.)[/size]

Pretty please ( in case you can’t see, I am batting my eyelids in sweet innocence)

9

Physical bonding of cells is not the ,no, bonding of cells is like a physical super glue or magnetic,hmmm environment
Damn it Tent, you are a genius! Thanks, I think part of a piece just showed itself to me , Thanks! I have to rummage around in my brain for a bit.

10
11

Hey kris - I expanded in story format - goto here

And it’s the weekend - so ‘quality time with the kiddies’ - back to you on Monday.

12

Shaken, not stirred…

13

GADS, what a mess do you realize what shaking can do? You are cleaning it up bucko, the mop is in the corner.

er uh or do you mean one of the other Shaken?

14

what do you want to tell nobody? that it thinks by bonds to be? i am sorry but i cannot see this thought in truth we are all the same as everything is the same image of Him if you want to balance your feelings towards others you can only of what you know of Him and what He is making you see of his will he may for example surprise you by bringing to your home a pet better than a best companion or maybe he would make all people agressing you of a same voice in his name or maybe he would force the pain of cutting the bonds you love the most truthful ones and say it is to be in you him
but the fact that you thought of truth in terms of survival pulsions means that you can give to the truth of love that you can see beyound the instinct to will the feeling of strength on men the problem is that both feelings are of God i proove my point i am talking about the real God not your jesus not me either not you the creator of all who knows what is better in thoughts putting it min words but willing to feel being the master of the earth

15

Iman,
I respect your beliefs I would fight for you to protect your beliefs. In previous posts you named me a liar. Well Iman, where I come from calling a person a liar is a grave insult. It is not right, nor fair, nor respectful, to impugne the integrity of a person that you do not know.
So know this, even though you brought insult upon me greatly, I would still fight for you to believe what you will. I respect your beliefs, but, I respect you not.
You have trouble in this communication mode perhaps, So I will into account take that. Respect me and my beliefs and I shall happily respect you and yours. I claim Jesus not. I respect the words and try to abide by the wisdom offered. Pray to a prophet I do not.
I would request with great respect and courtesy for you to descibe the bond you have with god. What it is that speaks to your soul and heart , how it feels and where do you feel it? can you describe this bond?

Please attempt to seperate your sentences with some sort of ending mark even if it is this; // or * It matters not which, but, it will aid in comprehension. I would truly appreciate the effort.

16

I have been working from this thought too see what you folks think:

What about looking at when bonds are cut.
We know that people who have lived most of their lives together are bonded. When one dies, the other generally follows fairly quick.
A divorce between two people can cause problems. Generally the bond is cut by one or turned off maybe, the other person is left without that connection, this has turned tragic.
I have seen animals do this too. If they lose a close companion they have mental issues and can give up on living.
A severed bond is likely to cause one to feel lost or empty, which leads to emotional questions and answers.

Animals reactions are pretty close to human reactions, they have dietary problems, overeating or starving themselves. Deppression, lieing around doing nothing except whine, cry, Aggression, and lose the will to live Etc…

The similarities in behavour are quite close. If a new bond can be made it often helps the creature* that had a tight bond severed. Although this does not seem work as well on older creatures. Why?

*Creature is inclusive of all species

17

Kriswest

I believe that the bonding is part natural such as imprinting and partially the result of conditioning. I just came up against something that has me stumped indicating the possibility of more to it. If you can bring any new alternatives I’d appreciate it.

I have this pair of breeding angelfish that are in an aquarium three feet from me now. Every twelve days the female lays eggs the male fertilizes them until a healthy brood is created. Then, thank goodness, they take time off from egglaying to become parents. Five hundred young or so hatch in two days and the parents pull the fry from the eggs and put them on a different leaf, stand guard, and keep them clean by taking them in their mouth and spitting them back onto the same or a new leaf. On the seventh day the fry are free swimming and a large cloud of young hover around the parents for protection and I feed them baby brine shrimp.

I read a lot on this on the Internet and discovered that many commercial breeders now remove the eggs right after they are laid and hatch them artificially since the parents will breed faster. I read further that good breeders do not like this because by taking the eggs away the fry gradually lose the ability to be good parents and often just eat the eggs or fry that they produce.

I cannot understand this. These babies are so small that you need a magnifying glass to see one. Yet somehow a bond is formed as the parents take care of them which in turn passes along the ability for good parenting skills. But what in the young learns? They are not even formed yet. What is developed when they are in the egg shell or hanging on a leaf barely formed that creates such a bond that passes along parenting skills? What is the nature of this communication? It seems that a special bond is created between the adult angelfish with a tiny something that is barely alive according to our standards. Yet this bonding is so powerful that without it, angelfish hatched without their parents can lose their parenting skills altogether. This is neither conditioning or imprinting but something more subtle almost within the life forces of the continuum between adult and fry itself. Perhaps this bond is like the flame of one match and survival knowledge within it being passed on to the flame of another where they become as one. I just don’t know.

18

Could be something simple like a chemical-released/recepetor governed reflex. Keyed to the receptors of the parent/fry.

Receptor counts atrophy without stimulus. Unstimulated Fry becomming adult - may lack the receptors in sufficient numbers to overcome the basic drive to have a free lunch.

I could be wrong - but it pays to look at the simple answer, before zooming off into metaphysics.

19

I was referring to the Bond movies, in which one of James’s catchphrases is ‘Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred’ Perhaps it wasn’t a particularly good joke…

20

LOL. I have only seen one maybe two Bond Movies, that is why it went flying over my head. I knew the reference was about drinking, that was all that flitted through my mind. Sorry about that.

Dense persons Belated : Oh I get it, and laughter follows, good one.