Purpose of crying

[EightySix Four]

What is the biological purpose of crying, I know why we have tears, but why do we cry when we have extreme emotion? I can think of no biological purpose for the behavior, it could possibly show a threat that your in a position of weakness. What do you guys think?

 

[brikis98]

i'm not sure if there is a known, definitive answer.

i remember reading that stress (from grief or sadness) causes the eye muscles to tighten and forces tears out. i've also heard that the body may dispose of various toxins through the tears, which may explain why people feel better after crying.

it does seem like a wierd reaction though.

 

[t0kinl3lunts]

I'd like to hear a good answer for this too. It could be considered a sign that you need help from a close member of your "pack."

 

[EightySix Four]

Wow, no full on answer yet?

I figured it was the same thing with the pack, but then again, it would be a pretty obvious sign of weekness to a predator, and no other animal seems to have picked up the habit.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Wow, no full on answer yet?

I figured it was the same thing with the pack, but then again, it would be a pretty obvious sign of weekness to a predator, and no other animal seems to have picked up the habit.

More animals cry

 

[LeatherNeck]

I don't think there has to be a biological "reason" for it.

If you are assuming random processes caused a mutation that caused us to be able to cry then there is not teleological reason to it at all. It just happened randomly.

This is one of the flawed ways that people speak about naturalistic evolution. The idea that a desirable trait is somehow comes into existence because it is "desirable" was disproven when scientists eventually discovered that it was genetic code that determined traits.

The classic picture of the short necked giraffe desiring a long neck to reach the fruit and so nature "designs" a long neck for the giraffe is bunk. If a short neck giraffe evolved into a long necked giraffe it was caused by a mutation in the genetic sequence which caused long necked giraffes. No teleogy here, just pure chance.

So it is with crying if you insist on a purely biological explanation. A genetic mutation occurs which causes the ability for crying. No design here, just pure chance. Pure chance, so no meaning. Hence there is no "reason" for crying, it just happened by random processes that humans can cry. If it came in handy for anything it was not because nature thought it through and decided it would be useful to have a crying being.

 

[rezinn]

Crying is done to recieve attention from your mother. I read a paper in Science a while ago where a gene was knocked out from a mouse which played a role in a whining noise it made when separated from its mother. Homozygous knockouts typically died because they made no sounds and their mother ignored them, while those with one allele suffered poorer survival than wild type mice.

As far as for extreme emotion, we are complex beings and our emotions can overcome us I guess. There is probably some connection between emotions and our primitive stress responses.

 

[asearchforreason]

The classic picture of the short necked giraffe desiring a long neck to reach the fruit and so nature "designs" a long neck for the giraffe is bunk. If a short neck giraffe evolved into a long necked giraffe it was caused by a mutation in the genetic sequence which caused long necked giraffes. No teleogy here, just pure chance.

You're right that life doesn't automatically evolve in the absolute most advantageous manner (i.e. if a long neck would be most advantageous, there is no guarantee that the giraffe will evolve that way unless the right series of random mutations occur). However, we are also not just a set of random mutations as you seem to be suggesting ("Pure chance, so no meaning."). As any mutation occurred, the mutation would either help or hinder the survival of the species and consequently be more likely to be passed on or less. So we're not a random amalgam of mutations, but a filtered set of these random mutations.

Anyway, I think rezinn's explanation sounds pretty reasonable. Crying was probably useful to proto-humans as a way of communicating without spoken language, just like we smile, laugh, and shout the same way to express the same emotions in almost every culture.

 

[LeatherNeck]

I wasn't arguing for the point in question but explaining that, if naturalistic evolution is a valid theory, then there can be no such thing as teleology in the process as reason and design implies a purpose.

While rezzin's explanation may be satisfactory for some and could explain it, it doesn't answer the question as to a biological "reason". Even if it means that the non-crying mammals die out it still doesn't mean that biology purposed it. Also, yelping for food is not quite the same as complex emotional response. When my eyes tear from pain it is far different than when they tear because I miss my wife and kids.

If, as you posit, crying and other expressions were a "proto-human" means of communicating then they are no longer biological "reasons" at that point but sociological ones.

So, back to my initial point, there is no biological "purpose" for crying.

 

[asearchforreason]

Also, yelping for food is not quite the same as complex emotional response. When my eyes tear from pain it is far different than when they tear because I miss my wife and kids.

I'm not purporting to explian the complex emotions involved, just the physical mechanism of crying.

If, as you posit, crying and other expressions were a "proto-human" means of communicating then they are no longer biological "reasons" at that point but sociological ones.

Sociology is just the study of how systems of intelligent creatures interact and is therefore inherently influenced by the underlying biology of the creatures. If the means of communication had never evolved, there would be no discussion of "sociology".

Anyway, I think you're arguing with no one here. No one is arguing for any sort of intelligent "design" which you seem to be adamant to refute. I think we all understand that a biological need (longer neck) does not "create" the needed trait, but that random mutations filling the need will be amplified, if they occur at all.

 

[LeatherNeck]

Originally posted by: asearchforreason
Anyway, I think you're arguing with no one here. No one is arguing for any sort of intelligent "design" which you seem to be adamant to refute. I think we all understand that a biological need (longer neck) does not "create" the needed trait, but that random mutations filling the need will be amplified, if they occur at all.

No. I'm arguing with you.

I'm not arguing against ID per se. I believe in God.

The question was "What is the biological purpose of crying" and people started bringing in purposes that had to do with "pack" analogies and other things. I am remaining on topic. You are bringing up secondary causality that might explain crying but doesn't answer the question of biological purpose.

The very word "purpose" implies intent in naturalistic biology and mutational processes have neither purpose nor intent.

Even in your schema of a biological dependence for all sociology, biology still has no "purpose" in communication or crying. If, as you say, it is merely a filtered trait it was still not purposed but happened that way. Once it did emerge as a biological capacity and developed as a result of the capacity of the human brain, the interactions between humans that would have developed crying would have come about as a result of social interactions but still would have not been purposed by biology.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: LeatherNeck

Originally posted by: asearchforreason
Anyway, I think you're arguing with no one here. No one is arguing for any sort of intelligent "design" which you seem to be adamant to refute. I think we all understand that a biological need (longer neck) does not "create" the needed trait, but that random mutations filling the need will be amplified, if they occur at all.

No. I'm arguing with you.

I'm not arguing against ID per se. I believe in God.

The question was "What is the biological purpose of crying" and people started bringing in purposes that had to do with "pack" analogies and other things. I am remaining on topic. You are bringing up secondary causality that might explain crying but doesn't answer the question of biological purpose.

The very word "purpose" implies intent in naturalistic biology and mutational processes have neither purpose nor intent.

Even in your schema of a biological dependence for all sociology, biology still has no "purpose" in communication or crying. If, as you say, it is merely a filtered trait it was still not purposed but happened that way. Once it did emerge as a biological capacity and developed as a result of the capacity of the human brain, the interactions between humans that would have developed crying would have come about as a result of social interactions but still would have not been purposed by biology.

Sorry but people use purpose to mean how does a function support life. ie the purpose of a mouth is to allow me to shove food down it.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Actually, it is scientifically proven that through crying you release various substances produced in your body, like selenium. The chemical composition of the tears produced while crying in pain, anguish or stress is different from that of the tears produced at will (by good actors) or when you cut too much onion.

 

[LeatherNeck]

Perhaps Spencer278 except that the original question once again asked about purpose in a teleological way. Again, the answer is none. You can bring any issues you want or meanings you want but it doesn't change the answer to the question.

Assuming that he was using purpose in another fashion, my response was still intended to refute some answers that attempted to assign purpose to biology as used in the normal sense of the word.

pur·pose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrps)
n.
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: ?And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue? (Sarah Josepha Hale).
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.

 

[EightySix Four]

Thanks anita.

 

[MrPickins]

Leatherneck: get over yourself. You misunderstood the op, and took it as an excuse to go on an anti intelligent design rant.

Crying probably started as a random mutation in a few individuals, but how do you explain the fact that all humans now cry? The only way would be if the behavior somehow increased the chance of survival for the individuals who did cry. Thus, some type of biological purpose. We can argue semantics all day long, but really what is important was what the op meant.

 

[LeatherNeck]

MrPickins,

I thought we were having a conversation here. I have nothing to get over with ID. Did you miss the part where I said I believe in God?

I'm not arguing semantics I'm arguing purpose. If you are content with your explanation then so be it but your explanation is not the "only way" such a trait could have emerged.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice so you could understand the arguments being raised instead of remaining in your cocoon. This is, after all, meant to be a highly technical forum, is it not? If semantics and metaphysics are too heavy for you then there is a warning sign in the forum list to "...check your ego at the door...."

 

[Bona Fide]

Sorry if someone already said this - I didn't read all of it.

Saline in tears helps to cleanse the body of impurities and bacteria. It is stored in the eyes because, let's face it: your eyes are the single most important external part of your body. Keeping them sterile is a paramount priority. So anyway, that's part of it. I think the other part is a psychological response to pain/trauma/stress. It's a way of letting other humans know that you are undergoing said stimuli, if you cannot communicate with them otherwise.

 

[scsi drv1]

Extraploate what you will:

We all know that crying is most generally brought on by situations involving extreme stress. During these periods it would be safe to assume that muscles and glands in the body would respond appropriate to whatever stimuli caused the aggrivation and produce chemicals in abnormal amounts.

At the same time it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the eyes are a very important sensory input receptor. The body itself is known to protect sensory appendages with different defenses.

Therefore it could be a mixture of not only protection but extraction. The act of crying itself could be a medium for first releaving tension and therefore diminishing the affect of a stimuli while keeping the occular cavity clear of higher and more harmful chemicals in the body. This would explain the mass build up of secretion in tears.

All in all, we cry like bitches!

 

[jerryjg]

Originally posted by: LeatherNeck
I don't think there has to be a biological "reason" for it.

If you are assuming random processes caused a mutation that caused us to be able to cry then there is not teleological reason to it at all. It just happened randomly.

This is one of the flawed ways that people speak about naturalistic evolution. The idea that a desirable trait is somehow comes into existence because it is "desirable" was disproven when scientists eventually discovered that it was genetic code that determined traits.

The classic picture of the short necked giraffe desiring a long neck to reach the fruit and so nature "designs" a long neck for the giraffe is bunk. If a short neck giraffe evolved into a long necked giraffe it was caused by a mutation in the genetic sequence which caused long necked giraffes. No teleogy here, just pure chance.

So it is with crying if you insist on a purely biological explanation. A genetic mutation occurs which causes the ability for crying. No design here, just pure chance. Pure chance, so no meaning. Hence there is no "reason" for crying, it just happened by random processes that humans can cry. If it came in handy for anything it was not because nature thought it through and decided it would be useful to have a crying being.

i disagree. I think research shows empiracally that although there is no "survival of the fittest",as you rightly point out; there is, however, an "elimination of the unfit", which over time(even from when we were primordial sludge) , has ensured that those better able to adapt (adapt or die) are more likely to survive. hence there was a natural selection occuring for the long necked giraffe. now, honestly, how many short necked giraffes have you seen ?
anyway, MAaybe you could argue that the very first mutation from carbon and hydrogen was a random occurence, but since the universe appears to be infinite, even pointing to an "origon" seems unlikely. After that supposed first random genetic mutation there isnt the possibiltty of any more random occurence since the entire process has betgun to exist in an ordered pattern..an example is the old adage that the saying" anything is possible" cannot be true, because that would eliminate at least one thing being possible. as a biologivcal occurence,its all natural selection.events are "reverse engineered" as senceless and randome, however when seen from a timeless perspective, there really is no coincidence. "god doesnt play dice with the universe " said Einstien.

 

[Diomedes]

In reply to jerryjg, you say that there is no survival of the fittest, but there is a elimination of the unfit, surely this is exacly the same thing.

I also disagree with leatherneck because he says that there is no biological 'purpose' for it. As mentioned by other members, the purpose for emotionally related crying is to release toxins in times of extreme stress. Ridding the body of the toxins make us feel better, and therefore help us cope with extremely stressful situations. Secondly, humans subconciously take note when they see someone crying, or hear crying, we all subconciously realise it as a sign of extreme stress and are alerted by it. This is why i agree with the idea of crying also signaling to nearby humans that you are undergoing extreme stress. Surely these two points are the biological purpose of crying. it may have started of as a mutation, but it obviously had advantageus aspects, which is why all humans nowadays cry. You cant use the excuse that it was a mutation and therefore has no purpose - nearly every part of the modern human body has been formed from mutations to certain animals which have gained an advantage over non-mutants and carried it on through future generations (evolution)


Not sure if ive made a good first impression on the forums by taking on established members in my first post but i was really interested in this topic.

 

[LeatherNeck]

jerryjg: I'm purposefully avoiding issues of cosmology and origins in this thread as it is off topic.

Diomedes: Who cares if you're a new poster. If you have something to say then your thoughts are as welcome as anyone's. Nobody owns the forum no matter how long or how many posts.

I've never said that crying has no utility or function. That is a far cry from what I've been saying (no pun intended).

My point is very strictly limited to teleological purpose. That is to say, did biology decide one day that crying would be a beneficial trait and therefore worked mutations in such a way that human beings and other animals would have the capacity to cry because it was so useful? Of course not - that's absurd but you hear it all the time from people who ought to know better. You can scarcely watch the Discovery Channel or go to a zoo without somebody saying: "Nature designed the Zebra's stripes to..." as if nature has some sort of intelligence.

The point is very strictly limited to this one: if the question is "What is the biological purpose of crying" as in why did biology purpose to give us the capacity to cry then the question is an absurd one because biology and nature never purpose anything. If, as naturalistic evolution posits, our traits are the result of a filtered random mutational process then there is no purpose or teleology involved.

Can one find utility or function in a trait? Absolutely and crying has much utility. But asking the question, what are the biological benefits of crying or why do we cry are issues of secondary causality (crying is already there so let's see if it has benefit) and not primary causality (why do we have the capacity to cry to begin with).

 

[firefaux]

its because you touch yourself at night.
no, seriously, i'd guess its because neurophysiologically, the part of our brain that deals with emotion triggers the motor response for tear production, maybe as a similar response to pain. after all, if we get hit hard enough, we cry. maybe sadness is a sort of pain as well.

 

[jerryjg]

Originally posted by: LeatherNeck
jerryjg: I'm purposefully avoiding issues of cosmology and origins in this thread as it is off topic.

Diomedes: Who cares if you're a new poster. If you have something to say then your thoughts are as welcome as anyone's. Nobody owns the forum no matter how long or how many posts.

I've never said that crying has no utility or function. That is a far cry from what I've been saying (no pun intended).

My point is very strictly limited to teleological purpose. That is to say, did biology decide one day that crying would be a beneficial trait and therefore worked mutations in such a way that human beings and other animals would have the capacity to cry because it was so useful? Of course not - that's absurd but you hear it all the time from people who ought to know better. You can scarcely watch the Discovery Channel or go to a zoo without somebody saying: "Nature designed the Zebra's stripes to..." as if nature has some sort of intelligence.

The point is very strictly limited to this one: if the question is "What is the biological purpose of crying" as in why did biology purpose to give us the capacity to cry then the question is an absurd one because biology and nature never purpose anything. If, as naturalistic evolution posits, our traits are the result of a filtered random mutational process then there is no purpose or teleology involved.

Can one find utility or function in a trait? Absolutely and crying has much utility. But asking the question, what are the biological benefits of crying or why do we cry are issues of secondary causality (crying is already there so let's see if it has benefit) and not primary causality (why do we have the capacity to cry to begin with).

 

[jerryjg]

Originally posted by: jerryjg

Originally posted by: LeatherNeck
jerryjg: I'm purposefully avoiding issues of cosmology and origins in this thread as it is off topic.

Diomedes: Who cares if you're a new poster. If you have something to say then your thoughts are as welcome as anyone's. Nobody owns the forum no matter how long or how many posts.

I've never said that crying has no utility or function. That is a far cry from what I've been saying (no pun intended).

My point is very strictly limited to teleological purpose. That is to say, did biology decide one day that crying would be a beneficial trait and therefore worked mutations in such a way that human beings and other animals would have the capacity to cry because it was so useful? Of course not - that's absurd but you hear it all the time from people who ought to know better. You can scarcely watch the Discovery Channel or go to a zoo without somebody saying: "Nature designed the Zebra's stripes to..." as if nature has some sort of intelligence.

The point is very strictly limited to this one: if the question is "What is the biological purpose of crying" as in why did biology purpose to give us the capacity to cry then the question is an absurd one because biology and nature never purpose anything. If, as naturalistic evolution posits, our traits are the result of a filtered random mutational process then there is no purpose or teleology involved.

Can one find utility or function in a trait? Absolutely and crying has much utility. But asking the question, what are the biological benefits of crying or why do we cry are issues of secondary causality (crying is already there so let's see if it has benefit) and not primary causality (why do we have the capacity to cry to begin with).

Thanks for that very nice responce to a stab in the dark attemt at an reply from information gathered from my repository of "101" class knowledge.