(Split thread) More to evolution than survival and reproduction

[Nick227]

Same derail of two threads merged into this one thread.

It's all conjecture, of course, but that seems to be how the world works.

As to the actual brain areas responsible -- that depends on how we define our terms. This is especially true for 'consciousness' since that word is used in so many differing ways. Some of this we know, some we do not.

I think the notion that human self-awareness developed through relatively random factors is valid. I think it is also valid to suggest that there is actually another driving force in evolution, aside from the need to survive and procreate - the desire of Being itself to become self-aware. And that this may actually be the dominant force, the one which the others merely facilitate.

Human consciousness, whilst it is initially constrained through identification with body, feelings and thoughts, is by no means bound by these restrictions interminably. There is the possibility to become aware of the constraining functions themselves, thus leading to deeper questions of "Who am I?"

Thus, I would say that this could be a factor behind human development - self-consciousness provides the possibility to transcend human limitation. And thus the development of a vessel which can experience self-consciousness is part of a greater evolutionary vision.

Nick

[RandFan]

Well, personally, I feel relatively content with my idea of how sense of self emerges. Of course, proving this neurologically is well beyond my ability. As for consciousness, I don't even try and go there yet! Damn! Well don't sit there like a bump on a log. Let us all in on it. That's one of the most significant questions humankind has ever faced. Please, I'm dying to know.

Why are you "relatively content"? This scares me because you then say that proving it is beyond your ability. Those don't go together very well. Kinda like beef gravy on lime jello. My 4 year old was confident he knew what made cars go. He didn't.

Don't get me wrong Nick. I'm just not comfortable with confidence. As Articulet says in her sig, The incompetent are the least likely to know it, and the ones who feel most confident in their abilities.

That was me not that long ago.

[Nick227]

No it is not valid - in the sense of using valid to mean "we have reason or evidence to think this".

Well, currently the other option is that the human development of self-consciousness occurred because of random environmental conditions which have yet to be identified. I mean, this is inevitably not going to be so satisfying for many people.

Nick

[KingMerv00]

Just give me a good scientific explanation for why consciousness and sense of selfhood developed to the degree they have in humans.

Nick

To shamlessly quote myself from another thread:

Evolution came upon a powerful brain that can predict the future. In order to plan events that ensure the survival of your genes, it is important to be able to tell the difference between your body and a lamp.

"Self" is a good way to protect your genes.

[Nick227]

...available in my post above.

Edit: Or not. The threads are blending together.

You said that humans developed large brains to better predict the future? Was that the one?

Yes, the threads are converging a bit!

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Just give me a good scientific explanation for why consciousness and sense of selfhood developed to the degree they have in humans.

Nick
Six billion plus of them, survival of a weak animal, that can now make hunting plans and make weapons.

Paul

:) :) :)

The whole bottom line of evolution is that it didn't need to happen, there is no end produce.

[KingMerv00]

Just give me a good scientific explanation for why consciousness and sense of selfhood developed to the degree they have in humans.

Nick

Wait, that has nothing to do with proving or falsifying YOUR belief. You are trying to put the burden of proof on me. No fair.

[Nick227]

Evolution came upon a powerful brain that can predict the future. In order to plan events that ensure the survival of your genes, it is important to be able to tell the difference between your body and a lamp.


"Self" is a good way to protect your genes.

Well, I'm not convinced that being able to predict the future comes within the remit of evolution theory, though I'm no expert. Can you explain this bit more as it seems to me that you're ascribing aspects to evolutionary drive which are inconsistent with what we know? I could be wrong.

Relating to selfhood, primates have an instinctual sense of selfhood anyway. I am asking why this level should have stepped up the level of self-consciousness we find in humans. Where are the environmental factors?

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Well, currently the other option is that the human development of self-consciousness occurred because of random environmental conditions which have yet to be identified. I mean, this is inevitably not going to be so satisfying for many people.

Nick
Oh please, yet to be identified, oh please, if you're still around, you may pass on you genes, if not, you most surely don't.

Paul

:) :) :)

[KingMerv00]

Well, I'm not convinced that being able to predict the future comes within the remit of evolution theory, though I'm no expert. Can you explain this bit more as it seems to me that you're ascribing aspects to evolutionary drive which are inconsistent with what we know? I could be wrong.


Again I protest, this has nothing to do with the truth of YOUR hypothesis.

Just to be clear, by "predict the future" I mean it in a entirely non-paranormal sense.

Of course "predicting the future" is useful in evolution: We have two creatures. One can anticipate danger and benefit, the other cannot. Which one is more likely to survive?

Relating to selfhood, primates have an instinctual sense of selfhood anyway. I am asking why this level should have stepped up the level of self-consciousness we find in humans. Where are the environmental factors?

For the same reason peacock feathers are so big. Evolution has a nasty habit of overshooting.

[Paulhoff]

Well, I'm not convinced that being able to predict the future comes within the remit of evolution theory, though I'm no expert. Can you explain this bit more as it seems to me that you're ascribing aspects to evolutionary drive which are inconsistent with what we know? I could be wrong.

Relating to selfhood, primates have an instinctual sense of selfhood anyway. I am asking why this level should have stepped up the level of self-consciousness we find in humans. Where are the environmental factors?

Nick
You can predict that there will be change, but not what that change may be. If you need to know everything, you are out of luck.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Six billion plus of them, survival of a weak animal, that can now make hunting plans and make weapons.

Well, could be. It just seems to me that to develop self-awareness for these purposes requires a fair bit of foresight on behalf of evolution, which as you've already pointed out is not what it is.

Nick

[Nick227]

Again I protest, this has nothing to do with the truth of YOUR hypothesis.

Just to be clear, by "predict the future" I mean it in a entirely non-paranormal sense.

Of course "predicting the future" is useful in evolution: We have two creatures. One can anticipate danger and benefit, the other cannot. Which one is more likely to survive?

For sure. But anticipating danger is highly instinctual. It's more the job of the mid-brain, the paleo-mammalian. This is surely already highly developed in animals. If anything, self-consciousness decreases instinctual and intuitive facilities a bit.



For the same reason peacock feathers are so big. Evolution has a nasty habit of overshooting.

KingMerv, I'm just saying that evolution theory specifically and science in general is weak here. God spots these openings and in he comes!

Nick

[Darat]

Well, currently the other option is that the human development of self-consciousness occurred because of random environmental conditions which have yet to be identified. I mean, this is inevitably not going to be so satisfying for many people.

Nick

Again it's a "no". :)

You seem to have a strange understanding of evolution and an even stranger understanding that somehow whether something is a fact or not is dependent on whether it is satisfying for many people or not.

[Darat]

Well, could be. It just seems to me that to develop self-awareness for these purposes requires a fair bit of foresight on behalf of evolution, which as you've already pointed out is not what it is.

Nick

Again it's a "no" since it takes no more "foresight" on behalf of evolution than an eye, a foot an appendix or my left.... well you get the idea.

Seriously Nick227 you don't seem to have a good basic grasp of what evolution is and it is really derailing this thread to carry on down this route of trying to explain it to you, this would be a good place to get yourself up to speed: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88911

[Hokulele]

I think the notion that human self-awareness developed through relatively random factors is valid. I think it is also valid to suggest that there is actually another driving force in evolution, aside from the need to survive and procreate - the desire of Being itself to become self-aware. And that this may actually be the dominant force, the one which the others merely facilitate.

Human consciousness, whilst it is initially constrained through identification with body, feelings and thoughts, is by no means bound by these restrictions interminably. There is the possibility to become aware of the constraining functions themselves, thus leading to deeper questions of "Who am I?"

Thus, I would say that this could be a factor behind human development - self-consciousness provides the possibility to transcend human limitation. And thus the development of a vessel which can experience self-consciousness is part of a greater evolutionary vision.

Nick


Maybe I am not following you correctly here, but does this mean that self-awareness existed before humans evolved, and it is independent from a brain?

[Paulhoff]

For sure. But anticipating danger is highly instinctual. It's more the job of the mid-brain, the paleo-mammalian. This is surely already highly developed in animals. If anything, self-consciousness decreases instinctual and intuitive facilities a bit.

Nick
Really, I have seen many an animal not get it that to move in front of a moving car is bad jo-jo.

There are many dangers that so-called instinctual animal lose that.

Paul

:) :) :)

[KingMerv00]

For sure. But anticipating danger is highly instinctual. It's more the job of the mid-brain, the paleo-mammalian. This is surely already highly developed in animals. If anything, self-consciousness decreases instinctual and intuitive facilities a bit.

KingMerv, I'm just saying that evolution theory specifically and science in general is weak here. God spots these openings and in he comes!

Nick

Of course God can fit in those openings. You define him as infinitely malleable and hence infinitely meaningless.

So how do we falsify your hypo?

[I Ratant]

Just give me a good scientific explanation for why consciousness and sense of selfhood developed to the degree they have in humans.

Nick

Other than "because they could", there's not much of a way to find out.
Evolution/life has no purpose/direction, it just works with what is available.
Sometimes it works well, sometimes (most of the time) it fails miserably when the conditions driving it change.
Looking for a purpose to it all is certainly a noble undertaking, but pointless in the long run.
"Consciousness" in the short time its been around has come close to stopping the whole process with a bang, or a long drawn out overheated whimper.
It may prove to be another dead end, where humanity as the dodo bird meets something even more malignant it can't cope with. That's not impossible, we are pretty nasty, but worse could be out there somewhere.

[Dancing David]

There are no instincts in humans, they are all learned and conditioned behaviors. The instincts last through about the first six weeks and then they are gone.

Also evolution does not plan to go anywhere it just goes.

[lupus_in_fabula]

My take on this follows Ichneumonwasp’s suggestion about social interaction playing an important role. I suppose there’s some kind of propensity for complex social interaction which is not entirely understood. Perhaps understanding mirror neurons, higher-level abstract thinking and language acquisition can help in this regard.

I would say language acquisition together with abstract reasoning is important for creating a sensation of personal selfhood. Unless I’m mistaken, children aren’t born with them (although there’s the hardwired potential of course), they must be learned. It would be interesting to know if there’s a great difference in how personal selfhood is perceived between people with extreme limits to their sensory system (eyesight and hearing), limiting language development and what we would consider “normal” in this context.

There’s also an interesting phenomenon regarding phobias. A common one is public speaking and it seems to be universal. However, in some cultures many report that their greatest fear is to be in a situation where their associate would feel humiliated. I don’t think it’s far fetched to think that culture might play a role in how we actually perceive personal selfhood.

[Nick227]

Damn! Well don't sit there like a bump on a log. Let us all in on it. That's one of the most significant questions humankind has ever faced. Please, I'm dying to know.

Why are you "relatively content"? This scares me because you then say that proving it is beyond your ability. Those don't go together very well. Kinda like beef gravy on lime jello. My 4 year old was confident he knew what made cars go. He didn't.

Don't get me wrong Nick. I'm just not comfortable with confidence. As Articulet says in her sig, The incompetent are the least likely to know it, and the ones who feel most confident in their abilities.

That was me not that long ago.

Hi RandFan,

Well, I'm happy to try and articulate what I believe. You will easily spot that such things are hard to objectively substantiate.

I consider that our sense of personal "I" comes from a variety of sources - instinctual defences, body map, and social mirroring - but that one other source is dominant - identification with thought. I figure that there is an unconscious process which applies some form of neurochemical treat to certain thoughts and to thus act on this thought provides a feeling of pleasure. This neurochemical treat, whatever it might be, also gives to the organism a sense of individuality. Thus, acting or identifying with these thoughts creates a good feeling and simultaneously the sense that there is someone, some "I", who is having them. The organism starts to assume it has a personal "I."

That's about it. There are quite a few holes and I'd like to tie in something to do with the factors which cause certain thoughts to be unconsciously selected over others.

Of course, lacking a good neurological model is a major drawback with any explanation relating to thinking processes, as one is otherwise only reliant on other thoughts to explain thinking!

Nick

[Nick227]

Maybe I am not following you correctly here, but does this mean that self-awareness existed before humans evolved, and it is independent from a brain?

No. It merely posits that there could be a desire within an implicate whole to develop self-awareness, to know itself for what it is. To satisfy this desire it first seeks to create a vessel which can support a basic level of self-consciousness - awareness of that vessel.

Nick

[Nick227]

Really, I have seen many an animal not get it that to move in front of a moving car is bad jo-jo.

There are many dangers that so-called instinctual animal lose that.



This is undeniably so, as many hedgehogs could verify. Well, were they not squashed flat in the middle of the road.

However, as a general rule, our reliance and awareness of instinct does decrease with self-awareness. In sexual behaviour, I think one could make out a pretty good case that creatures with lower levels of self-awareness tend to have more sex. They have less mind****s about themselves for a start.

Nick

[Hokulele]

No. It merely posits that there could be a desire within an implicate whole to develop self-awareness, to know itself for what it is. To satisfy this desire it first seeks to create a vessel which can support a basic level of self-consciousness - awareness of that vessel.

Nick


I'm really sorry, but I am still not following you here. When you state that there could be a desire, where exactly does this desire reside? When you state that it seeks to create a vessel, is the vessel something physical, or do you mean a partition in a general awareness that may already exist?

This is undeniably so, as many hedgehogs could verify. Well, were they not squashed flat in the middle of the road.

However, as a general rule, our reliance and awareness of instinct does decrease with self-awareness. In sexual behaviour, I think one could make out a pretty good case that creatures with lower levels of self-awareness tend to have more sex. They have less mind****s about themselves for a start.

Nick


Well, I think your last statement here is a bit off, as most creatures only come into heat rarely, and do not seem to engage in recreational sex. In addition, many creatures do not do the sex thing at all.

[Nick227]

Again it's a "no" since it takes no more "foresight" on behalf of evolution than an eye, a foot an appendix or my left.... well you get the idea.

I get the idea. I'm not much convinced though. I would have thought that someone would have at least created some real data and models, an evolutionary hypothesis to explain self-consciousness. Is there a good one?

If no one can relate any specific environmental conditions that would have likely caused this development then I personally find the "God" hypothesis stronger. I don't really believe in God, but it looks stronger to me.

Seriously Nick227 you don't seem to have a good basic grasp of what evolution is and it is really derailing this thread to carry on down this route of trying to explain it to you, this would be a good place to get yourself up to speed: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88911

Well, I apologise for any derailing but I think in the case of the "Is God hiding?" thread this notion is pretty much on-topic. I read some of the thread you linked, thanks. I didn't see anything really new to me, though I will read some more.

Nick

[Nick227]

I'm really sorry, but I am still not following you here. When you state that there could be a desire, where exactly does this desire reside? When you state that it seeks to create a vessel, is the vessel something physical, or do you mean a partition in a general awareness that may already exist?

I would consider the desire as existing in the mind. An innate desire for self-awareness. The vessel is something physical, a creature that has the potential to develop awareness.

Well, I think your last statement here is a bit off, as most creatures only come into heat rarely, and do not seem to engage in recreational sex. In addition, many creatures do not do the sex thing at all.

Yes, fair enough. Though I maintain that self-awareness frequently decreases the amount of sex in humans.

Nick

[Hokulele]

I would consider the desire as existing in the mind. An innate desire for self-awareness. The vessel is something physical, a creature that has the potential to develop awareness.


So you are suggesting it is not so much evolution in the human species, but in the individual? In other words, the desire is existent in a newborn brain, but must mold the individual into self-awareness?

[Nick227]

My take on this follows Ichneumonwasp’s suggestion about social interaction playing an important role. I suppose there’s some kind of propensity for complex social interaction which is not entirely understood. Perhaps understanding mirror neurons, higher-level abstract thinking and language acquisition can help in this regard.

I would say language acquisition together with abstract reasoning is important for creating a sensation of personal selfhood. Unless I’m mistaken, children aren’t born with them (although there’s the hardwired potential of course), they must be learned. It would be interesting to know if there’s a great difference in how personal selfhood is perceived between people with extreme limits to their sensory system (eyesight and hearing), limiting language development and what we would consider “normal” in this context.

There’s also an interesting phenomenon regarding phobias. A common one is public speaking and it seems to be universal. However, in some cultures many report that their greatest fear is to be in a situation where their associate would feel humiliated. I don’t think it’s far fetched to think that culture might play a role in how we actually perceive personal selfhood.

Oh, I quite like public speaking, being a bit of a show-off. Public singing scares the crap out of me though.

I'm sure that the factors you mention are relevant, though I figure language acquisition has also a lot to do with group dynamics and belonging, as well as the desire to express oneself and one's individuality. In considering the personal "I" there are obviously factors which have been derived from our evolutionary history, notably defense and body map. However, my experience is still that a big chunk of it is straight-up identification with thought.

Nick

[Nick227]

So you are suggesting it is not so much evolution in the human species, but in the individual? In other words, the desire is existent in a newborn brain, but must mold the individual into self-awareness?

I consider that it is a driving force in all evolution, and that its effect has resulted in the final development of self-conscious humans. However, at this point, it is then up to the individual to complete evolutionary task by turning the focus of his or her awareness back onto their own sense of selfhood. Convincing people to do this is the task of numerous mythologies and religions, though it is no easy one as the identified mind is reluctant to risk giving up its experience of free will. There is also an innate desire for self-confrontation buried in most people, in my experience, but it's covered over with a lot of other stuff.

Nick

[Hokulele]

I consider that it is a driving force in all evolution, and that its effect has resulted in the final development of self-conscious humans.


Ah, I understand you now, but I will have to strongly disagree, mostly for the reasons stated by I Ratant earlier in this thread. There is no evidence whatsoever for any driving force in all evolution, nor that humans/self-awareness are a necessary end point to evolution. It would be just as reasonable to state that the driving force behind evolution is multi-colored tulips, and evolution created humans and instilled them with an aesthetic sense to force them to artificially hybridize the appropriate strains.

This type of human-centric thinking tends to smack a bit of unwarranted egotism (ironically enough, considering your opinion of the "I" ;)).

For a second point, as I had mentioned in my first post in this thread, where would this driving force reside and how can it interact with genetic mutation/natural selection?

However, at this point, it is then up to the individual to complete evolutionary task by turning the focus of his or her awareness back onto their own sense of selfhood. Convincing people to do this is the task of numerous mythologies and religions, though it is no easy one as the identified mind is reluctant to risk giving up its experience of free will. There is also an innate desire for self-confrontation buried in most people, in my experience, but it's covered over with a lot of other stuff.

Nick


For what it is worth, I generally agree with you here.

[Nick227]

Ah, I understand you now, but I will have to strongly disagree, mostly for the reasons stated by I Ratant earlier in this thread. There is no evidence whatsoever for any driving force in all evolution, nor that humans/self-awareness are a necessary end point to evolution. It would be just as reasonable to state that the driving force behind evolution is multi-colored tulips, and evolution created humans and instilled them with an aesthetic sense to force them to artificially hybridize the appropriate strains.

This type of human-centric thinking tends to smack a bit of unwarranted egotism (ironically enough, considering your opinion of the "I" ;)).

Well, it is human-centric and egotistical, I admit. And there is in it also that I prefer not to think of humans as merely an happy or unhappy accident. Though this isn't such a big deal. But I don't really see what's so wrong with being human-centric. Our universe is the product of our awareness. And in our outgoing aspects we are inevitably entrapped in our human-ness. Why deceive ourselves otherwise?

I also generally support egotism. It takes a lot of self-awareness to be authentically altruistic, much more than most altruists have developed.

For a second point, as I had mentioned in my first post in this thread, where would this driving force reside and how can it interact with genetic mutation/natural selection?

That's for sure a question beyond my knowledge.




For what it is worth, I generally agree with you here.

Then the evolutionary stuff doesn't really matter anyway. How one chooses, or is subconsciously driven, to believe "how we got here" is finally irrelevant.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Nick227

Why don’t you point out whales and dolphins, you don’t think they have self-awareness, how much self-awareness is needed to count, and how does one determine that, does a dog and cat have some self-awareness, I think so. People at one time (and some still do today) think that other races are not as self-aware as they are.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Nick227

Why don’t you point out whales and dolphins, you don’t think they have self-awareness, how much self-awareness is needed to count, and how does one determine that, does a dog and cat have some self-awareness, I think so. People at one time (and some still do today) think that other races are not as self-aware as they are.

Paul

:) :) :)

I have not disputed that other animals likely have self-awareness. I agree that it seems entirely reasonable to assume that they do. They certainly behave in a way consistent with them having it.

I am saying that only humans seem to be capable of thinking about whether or not there is a "God," admittedly partly because it becomes incredibly speculative to try and decide just what other creatures might think about such matters. Theorising about self-awareness is inevitably human-centric.

As to "other races" I would point out that self-awareness is a capacity innate in humans. It still has to be developed, and this takes place largely through what is experienced as human effort, rather than through being born with some innately large amount of it.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Then the evolutionary stuff doesn't really matter anyway. How one chooses, or is subconsciously driven, to believe "how we got here" is finally irrelevant.

Nick
No it isn't irrelevant, to many people think they are so-called god sent and have little regard for their fellow live forms, are they think they are far below them.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

No it isn't irrelevant, to many people think they are so-called god sent and have little regard for their fellow live forms, are they think they are far below them.

Paul

:) :) :)

I was commenting on Hokulele's statement that he agreed with part of what I was saying. If you agree that self-awareness is a valuable personal goal then the reasons you give yourself to develop it - whether they be related to God, evolution, science, society, or whatever - are finally irrelevant. These things are merely what justified your continued effort at the time.

Nick

[Hokulele]

I was commenting on Hokulele's statement that he agreed with part of what I was saying...


"She", but no worries. Anonymous medium and all.

I will disagree just a little bit on the irrelevance of source for self-awareness. If self-awareness is present in other people (and other creatures), it becomes more important to treat others well out of respect for that awareness. Once you believe that people, or worse, people like yourself, have a special place in the universe, a far nastier version of "us" vs. "them" becomes more acceptable (er, "you" in the general sense, not you in particular Nick).

So by positing a source such as directional evolution or god, you have set up a value hierarchy that could potentially lead to trouble. By positing a source of no particular purpose (I hate the term "happy accident"), I can understand that no one holds a special place in the universe.

[Nick227]

"She", but no worries. Anonymous medium and all.

I will disagree just a little bit on the irrelevance of source for self-awareness. If self-awareness is present in other people (and other creatures), it becomes more important to treat others well out of respect for that awareness. Once you believe that people, or worse, people like yourself, have a special place in the universe, a far nastier version of "us" vs. "them" becomes more acceptable (er, "you" in the general sense, not you in particular Nick).

So by positing a source such as directional evolution or god, you have set up a value hierarchy that could potentially lead to trouble. By positing a source of no particular purpose (I hate the term "happy accident"), I can understand that no one holds a special place in the universe.

Apologies for calling you a guy. Regarding self-awareness, I think it's important to treat others with respect, though it is also good to be able to give negative feedback if necessary.

About belief systems, personally I find it a little odd to give hard and fast rules. Could I ask you why you need to believe that it is necessary to adopt a certain belief system in order to believe that no one holds a special place in the universe. If that is what you choose to believe, why not simply believe it? Where's the need to create a belief system for yourself that leads to it? I don't follow.

Nick

[Hokulele]

Apologies for calling you a guy.


Again, no worries. I have been called far worse things. :)

Regarding self-awareness, I think it's important to treat others with respect, though it is also good to be able to give negative feedback if necessary.


I agree, although I do not necessarily see giving negative feedback as being a lack of respect.

About belief systems, personally I find it a little odd to give hard and fast rules. Could I ask you why you need to believe that it is necessary to adopt a certain belief system in order to believe that no one holds a special place in the universe. If that is what you choose to believe, why not simply believe it? Where's the need to create a belief system for yourself that leads to it? I don't follow.

Nick


I'll have to think about this one a bit, as I have never thought of it as a belief system per se, but rather a single rule that any system that ranks people/things in a strict value hierarchy is a system that requires extra scrutiny. I was mainly applying that rule to your argument that evolution is directed towards producing self-awareness, and what such a direction would imply.

Looking back on that post, I think I did write it backwards. Based on my belief that no one thing is special, the idea that evolution is directed is in conflict. To resolve the conflict, I thought about what evidence supports the idea that no one is special, and the evidence against. This is a bit challenging as I do realize I have to have some extra affection for my self as it is, else run the risk of nihilism. But yet, I have to look at my fondness for myself from a bit of an objective perspective to see if it holds up as being a general truth (lower case "t") rather than a personal truth. Of course, this is more of a philosophical examination as opposed to a scientific examination, which would support the "not important" theory.

As I said, it is good food for thought to ponder this rule. Maybe I will think of a better way to frame it after some heavy thinking.

[Nick227]

I'll have to think about this one a bit, as I have never thought of it as a belief system per se, but rather a single rule that any system that ranks people/things in a strict value hierarchy is a system that requires extra scrutiny. I was mainly applying that rule to your argument that evolution is directed towards producing self-awareness, and what such a direction would imply.

What I'm suggesting does create a kind of hierachical system, as I see it. But not one that would place any specific individual human on a plane above another. Rather it puts humans broadly above other life forms, which can provoke emotional reactions in some, for sure.

I also don't see the hierachy as really the core of what I'm suggesting.

Looking back on that post, I think I did write it backwards. Based on my belief that no one thing is special, the idea that evolution is directed is in conflict. To resolve the conflict, I thought about what evidence supports the idea that no one is special, and the evidence against. This is a bit challenging as I do realize I have to have some extra affection for my self as it is, else run the risk of nihilism. But yet, I have to look at my fondness for myself from a bit of an objective perspective to see if it holds up as being a general truth (lower case "t") rather than a personal truth. Of course, this is more of a philosophical examination as opposed to a scientific examination, which would support the "not important" theory.

Well, on an objective level, I would think that it is difficult to decide whether or not something or someone is "special" until some form of purpose or direction for existence can be agreed upon.

As I said, it is good food for thought to ponder this rule. Maybe I will think of a better way to frame it after some heavy thinking.

I think that not having agendas is good for self-awareness generally. Of course it's easier to say than do a lot of the time!

Nick

[Dancing David]

Well, I think your last statement here is a bit off, as most creatures only come into heat rarely, and do not seem to engage in recreational sex. In addition, many creatures do not do the sex thing at all.

Just to agree here, I believe that only humans and chimps have free cycling esterous.

[Paulhoff]

Rather it puts humans broadly above other life forms, which can provoke emotional reactions in some, for sure.

Nick
And look what humans have been with that in mind, trashed the planet.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

And look what humans have been with that in mind, trashed the planet.

Paul

:) :) :)

We play a high stakes game, for sure.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

We play a high stakes game, for sure.

Nick
The problem is, IT IS NOT A GAME. IT IS FOR REAL.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

The problem is, IT IS NOT A GAME. IT IS FOR REAL.

Paul

:) :) :)

Evolution sucks, huh? (Or were you brought up Catholic?)

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Evolution sucks, huh?

Nick
Evolution just is, misuse of knowledge sucks.

No on the Catholic, and whatever it would have be, I wouldn't be now.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Evolution just is, misuse of knowledge sucks.

No on the Catholic, and what ever it would be I wouldn't be now.

Paul

:) :) :)

I figure misuse of knowledge is inevitable, if you don't invest time in finding out who you are.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

I figure misuse of knowledge is inevitable, if you don't invest time in finding out who you are.

Nick
Well, I know who I is..........

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hokulele]

What I'm suggesting does create a kind of hierachical system, as I see it. But not one that would place any specific individual human on a plane above another. Rather it puts humans broadly above other life forms, which can provoke emotional reactions in some, for sure.


Which misses the point of evolutionary theory, where no one group of organisms is above any other. It is all about being adapted to a local environment, rather than reaching any idealistic goal. An organism doesn't have to have the "best" adaptation, good enough is good enough.

I also don't see the hierachy as really the core of what I'm suggesting.


Any time you state that there is a target or goal to anything (such as evolution working towards self-awareness), it can easily turn into an us vs. them issue (self-aware vs. not self-aware). I don't think the world is that black and white, and that there is a continuum of awareness.

I am not suggesting that you have this type of binary thinking, but the argument itself (evolution is working towards self-awareness) does imply it.

Well, on an objective level, I would think that it is difficult to decide whether or not something or someone is "special" until some form of purpose or direction for existence can be agreed upon.


I thought you were proposing that self-awareness was the purpose for evolution? :confused:

And in addition, does existence require a purpose or direction, other than what the existee (if self-aware) may decide for itself?

I think that not having agendas is good for self-awareness generally. Of course it's easier to say than do a lot of the time!

Nick


I agree, which is why I feel it is good for me to sit back and think about what I think every now and then. Then again, there are times when it is even better to just go surfing and not worry about metaphysics.

[Nick227]

Which misses the point of evolutionary theory, where no one group of organisms is above any other. It is all about being adapted to a local environment, rather than reaching any idealistic goal. An organism doesn't have to have the "best" adaptation, good enough is good enough.

Any time you state that there is a target or goal to anything (such as evolution working towards self-awareness), it can easily turn into an us vs. them issue (self-aware vs. not self-aware). I don't think the world is that black and white, and that there is a continuum of awareness.

I am not suggesting that you have this type of binary thinking, but the argument itself (evolution is working towards self-awareness) does imply it.

I don't really have such a issue with hierachies, personally. My experience is that finally those with the greatest awareness naturally tend to rise to the top and that this is good.

Trying to level everything off is a bit unrealistic if you ask me. The communists tried it but I didn't see it working so good. There are natural traits of dominant and submissive behaviour written through our genetic ancestory. When someone doesn't accept their perceived role in a hierachy there can be a tendency to try and level everything off. I haven't seen this work so good.




I thought you were proposing that self-awareness was the purpose for evolution? :confused:

I should have said that evolution is one vehicle used in the journey to create self-consciousness. Otherwise I'm ascribing to a simple biological process a larger degree of innate direction than is really reasonable.

And in addition, does existence require a purpose or direction, other than what the existee (if self-aware) may decide for itself?


Self-awareness gives one the possibility to create purposes and directions. Finally there is only the purpose or direction that you ascribe, through your own needs, conscious or otherwise.

Classically, the arisal of self-consciousness plunges man into the abyss. We bite the apple and we fall. We can get help but we also have to find our own way out. This sounds reasonable to me.

I agree, which is why I feel it is good for me to sit back and think about what I think every now and then. Then again, there are times when it is even better to just go surfing and not worry about metaphysics.

For sure. Shame there aren't so many beaches around here. Well, not ones with decent waves!

Nick

[Hokulele]

I don't really have such a issue with hierachies, personally. My experience is that finally those with the greatest awareness naturally tend to rise to the top and that this is good.

Trying to level everything off is a bit unrealistic if you ask me. The communists tried it but I didn't see it working so good. There are natural traits of dominant and submissive behaviour written through our genetic ancestory. When someone doesn't accept their perceived role in a hierachy there can be a tendency to try and level everything off. I haven't seen this work so good.


Well, there are two main problems with hierarchies as I see it. First, how do you know that the value you are basing the hierachy on is true, and how do you know you are not simply experiencing confirmation bias? For example, the Catholic Church states that women cannot hold positions of power. Is this due to some innate inferiority in women as they claim, or is it due to something else? It is precisely this unevidenced type of bias I distrust most strongly in hierarchical systems.

Second, creating hierarchical groups discounts the variability among individuals. To move to a safer example than the sexism one in the previous paragraph, let's take your claim that humans have a greater self-awareness than other animals. I can show you examples of individual dogs that demonstrate greater self-awareness than some people (politicians come to mind).

Regarding your second point, I am not so sure I would want to see a leveling off per se, but simply an awareness of the liabilities of such a hierarchy. For example, I do not mind stating that I feel greater kinship with other people (as opposed to animals) and I value humans more than animals for this type of reason. But this is a personal judgement and not a value that is inherently inferior in the animals. In other words, things, people, and animals can be special to me, but that does not mean they are special to others, or special in any kind of objective way.

I should have said that evolution is one vehicle used in the journey to create self-consciousness. Otherwise I'm ascribing to a simple biological process a larger degree of innate direction than is really reasonable.


Fair enough.

Self-awareness gives one the possibility to create purposes and directions. Finally there is only the purpose or direction that you ascribe, through your own needs, conscious or otherwise.

Classically, the arisal of self-consciousness plunges man into the abyss. We bite the apple and we fall. We can get help but we also have to find our own way out. This sounds reasonable to me.


Sure, but this would then contradict the idea that evolution has anything to do with this. It seems to me, a trait that plunges man into the abyss would have a hard time being selected for given the relatively short life-spans back when the human brain was coming into being. "Yeah, let's get it on with that really depressed dude/dudette."

To me, it seems more likely it was part and parcel of a large brain/intelligence, and was neutral enough at the time to avoid being selected against. I hope this makes sense.

For sure. Shame there aren't so many beaches around here. Well, not ones with decent waves!

Nick


I've heard that there are decent waves around there, just a bit chilly!

[GodMark2]

I don't really have such a issue with hierachies, personally. My experience is that finally those with the greatest awareness naturally tend to rise to the top and that this is good.

Trying to level everything off is a bit unrealistic if you ask me. The communists tried it but I didn't see it working so good. There are natural traits of dominant and submissive behaviour written through our genetic ancestory. When someone doesn't accept their perceived role in a hierachy there can be a tendency to try and level everything off. I haven't seen this work so good.

The elephant is larger; the horse is swifter and stronger; the butterfly is far more beautiful; the mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable.

Which should be at the top of your hierarchy? The elephant, the horse, the butterfly, the mosquito, or the sponge? They're all better than humans.

"Trying to level everything off" is a strawman to argue against. Evolution doesn't make everything level, but it also does not try to create one master hierarchy. If strength is the most advantageous means to survive, then the strong survive. If lack of size matters, the small survive. But if both strength and lack of size matter, then either the small or the strong, or even both, could survive. You wouldn't be able to say that the strong are 'better' than the small.

[Nick227]

Well, there are two main problems with hierarchies as I see it. First, how do you know that the value you are basing the hierachy on is true, and how do you know you are not simply experiencing confirmation bias? For example, the Catholic Church states that women cannot hold positions of power. Is this due to some innate inferiority in women as they claim, or is it due to something else? It is precisely this unevidenced type of bias I distrust most strongly in hierarchical systems.

Well, everyone has some issues with hierachies, except for those at the top of them. But I think it's important that someone can really accept being in one and appreciate not being in control. A lot of people really struggle with hierachies, and articulate many very reasonable arguments to justify their position. But, deeper down, a lot are simply afraid of losing control, of giving away power to another. It's an instinctual, animal issue, masquerading as a reasonable intellectual one.

What I'm trying to say is that, without knowing you, it's kind of hard for me to discuss hierachies with you, as I don't know if you're conscious or not of your issues with hierachies. I hope this doesn't **** you off or sound too patronising. That's not my intention.

Hierachies exist all over the animal kingdom. They are inevitable.

Second, creating hierarchical groups discounts the variability among individuals. To move to a safer example than the sexism one in the previous paragraph, let's take your claim that humans have a greater self-awareness than other animals. I can show you examples of individual dogs that demonstrate greater self-awareness than some people (politicians come to mind).

I agree that many people have very little self-awareness. However, I'd like to point out that self-awareness is specifically awareness of who you are. It's hard to assess in other species!

Sure, but this would then contradict the idea that evolution has anything to do with this. It seems to me, a trait that plunges man into the abyss would have a hard time being selected for given the relatively short life-spans back when the human brain was coming into being. "Yeah, let's get it on with that really depressed dude/dudette."

Well, not all mythos is relating the same notion of time as ours. Metaphysically, the Fall is, for instance, an ongoing act, not just an ongoing state.

I see a vertical axis of awareness, as well as a horizontal axis of time.[/quote]




I've heard that there are decent waves around there, just a bit chilly!

Yes, I may make it down to Croyde or Newquay with my girlfriend's kids this summer, if it arrives, and give it another go.

Nick

[arthwollipot]

Hierachies exist all over the animal kingdom. They are inevitable.Can you provide some examples, becuase I just can't see what you're saying.

[Nick227]

Can you provide some examples, becuase I just can't see what you're saying.

Baboons, hyenas. There are dominant and submissive traits. The group forms its own hierachical structure and then there is order. In modern-day management parlance they call it "forming, storming, norming."

Nick

[westprog]

Which should be at the top of your hierarchy? The elephant, the horse, the butterfly, the mosquito, or the sponge? They're all better than humans.

"Trying to level everything off" is a strawman to argue against. Evolution doesn't make everything level, but it also does not try to create one master hierarchy. If strength is the most advantageous means to survive, then the strong survive. If lack of size matters, the small survive. But if both strength and lack of size matter, then either the small or the strong, or even both, could survive. You wouldn't be able to say that the strong are 'better' than the small.

As far as elephants are concerned, elephants are the most important creature. Mosquitos favour mosquitos. Sponges tend to favour sponges. (Admittedly my knowledge is largely garnered from Nickleodeon). Domestic horses do what humans want, but a generation in the wild will give them a horse-oriented viewpoint. It seems to be a human characteristic to ponder whether other species should be regarded as similarly important to our own.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would "self awareness" be some unique human attribute? This is quite arrogant of a point of view and not consistent with the evidence at all.

We have assumed the mirror test identifies self awareness. Maybe it does. But all it is telling us is a step in the evolution of intelligence has been achieved.

There have been many claims in the past about what separates humans from animals and most of those claims have turned out to be false. Humans were supposedly different because we use tools. That couldn't have been more wrong. Even crows have demonstrated tool use. Our tools and technology are more sophisticated, but we didn't develop tool use out of the blue.

Humans were the only species that supposedly had language. There are still people arguing we have syntax yadda yadda, our language is different. Sure, we have vocal cords that are unique in the animal world and we appear to communicate a whole slew of things no non-human primates communicate. But one can also argue that animals have learned some of our language long before we started to learn theirs. Now that we are learning animal language we again can see, language evolved. It did not develop out of the blue.

We do have the most evolved intelligence in the animal queendom ( ;) just playing with language there, don't get excited). But any claims that our brains took a great leap forward should keep the evidence in mind. Technology does indeed make humans unique. But all this speculation that huge leaps in every brain function took place at a single time in evolution is contrary to the evidence and to logic for that matter.

[arthwollipot]

Baboons, hyenas. There are dominant and submissive traits. The group forms its own hierachical structure and then there is order. In modern-day management parlance they call it "forming, storming, norming."

NickI thought that you were referring to heirarchies betweenspecies, rather than within species. Many species form social heirarchies, and it's nothing strange or unusual.