The Evolution Epiphany

a reply to: Astyanax
Something else occurred to me about the evolutionary importance of this particular bias. In terms of our understanding of the natural world, it has only been recently that humans have even had the time to "figure out" why things work the way they do.

As hunter/gatherers, those that simply didn't accept things are the way they are because they were designed that way, wouldn't have been seen as "built for survival". Those that would have spent their time trying to figure out "why trees are green" or "why the sky is blue" or "why rocks are pointy" wouldn't have been doing what they needed to do on a daily basis to survive and provide for the survival of their group, mainly hunt, gather, provide shelter, avoid predators. While those that did have this natural bias simply would have chalked those answers up to the simpler teleological arguments and wouldn't have wasted the time on them.

As an agrarian society, humans still did not have the time to worry about such things. Each day was tending to crops, looking after livestock, providing for the community. As technology has increased, humans spent less and less time, daily, on "survival". This presented the opportunity to move cognitive development further toward examining natural explanations. So, if we were going to predict further development, those that have an easier time shaking the teleological for the scientific will be better suited to "survive" as technology plays an ever increasing role in our daily lives and survival. However as we are very communal and generally empathetic as a species, those that are stuck in the teleological will still "survive" do to the rest of the group not allowing them to "die out", as they would naturally.

The concept of an actual "creator" has to be instilled in the young by their authority figures. From the "Why Rocks are Pointy" examples . . . Children don't agree that "rocks are pointy" due to a specific entity, just that they were "designed that way" for a purpose. The example given to the students was "so animals have some place to scratch themselves". It is the mature developed mind that seeks the answer of "who" was responsible. And, it's why we see every culture coming up with a different "who".

Or, whatever . . .

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Great points about the ego and fear of looking dumb. Just as nobody wants to be labeled a "monster", so they conform to the social morals of a society. Nobody wants to admit that they lack knowledge or "don't know", thus splintering them from the larger group.

Star for you!

The real epiphany is when you understand the true meaning of life.

Can anyone person here say the meaning of life?

Why would life want to exist amongst floating matter, unseen but felt forces such as gases, All forms of rays/gamma,better, electric-electromagnetic-, Sub aptomic particles, Sub atomic waves/Sub atomic decay/subatomic assembly. Why force reproduction? Why obtain intelligence? What is the point of a living creation taking part in creation itself?

Why are you currently here? What brought you about?

The answers are all as simple as all of our yurning to be remembered.



You must listen to me very carfully, For i am giving you the ambitions of all life in existance.
All life shares this common goal. To create experience* as one individual can be seen by many* Or the many seen as an individual ( Animals/flora fauna) When a common goal is completed, A event is marked on the calander.

Listen very closely, you must understand the ambitions of life.

For if there was no life, there would still be the existance of rocks and everything else.
There possibly was a time, Long long ago. When the planets,stars, blackholes and the forces of creation existed. All the homes set for the coming inpending life. But as planets/stars were devoured. The living coniousness that is the planets and stars themselves sent out SoS signals to other planets and stars upon their destruction, With the pulses of electromagnetic frequencies and particle waves. The other planets and stars fretting the destruction of their friend and nabour becan thinking about their own immenant demise.


The planets grew lonely, The stars grew lonely. The havens ached with the loss of their bretheran/sister.
When more children were destroyed by the black holes, Taken to the Underworld.

The planets knew their demise was timed, and all they had to do was wait. They knew they would be stucked into the casm of funneling mass and energy. They knew they would be ripped apart atom by atom into shards and compressed into a sleeping state. They knew their guts would fill the night sky, as it would return back to the source of its creation and ultimately its death.

The heavens panicked at the loss of so many sisters and brothers.

Listen very closely, for the answers to why life exists are within these metaphors.

So the eldest of these stars had an idea, So they started blinking their particle signial waves to the nearby planets and stars.
The other stars heard of this idea, and it was brilliant. They knew that their demise would be unstoppable. But they found a way in how to be remebered.

Listen closely, and remeber what i said about our inherit longing to be remebered, for fame and glory.

The planets spawned LIFE! What a brilliant idea. The stars working together with their planetary partners, began beaming brilliant hews of light/rays at the planets, Filling it with their own consious energy, their own vital source.

Life emerges!!!! LIFE EMERGES!!!!! the planets cryout LIFE EMERGES! We shall never be forgotten!!!

And life grew its eyes and mouth and ears and hands and feet and said to the sky. WHY ARE WE HEAR!!! in its collective singular voices.

And the skies and the stars began flickering different rays, Sending messages to the inhabitants of the hosts.
"You are here to be remebered!" said the planets and stars colletively
"You are here to remeber our stories and us" Said the planets and stars.

And life responded. "We shall never be forgotten! We shall never forget you! We will crawl the ends of the universe so that you will never be forgotten!" Said all of life in its collective joy. For life was given a purpose, But the greatest purpose of all.

For the planets, stars, and forces of the universe may create and destroy. It is because of this, they shall never be remebered.
But life is the remedy for their longing. We are the cure of amnesia!
All life is the cure of amnesia!

For the heavens rejoiced and said, "We now how purpose! Lets govern our stories and care for our children!"

The planets and stars roared in their tryumph over death.

But life was skeptical, Not all of life understand the plan. Or why it was so important to remeber things.
Or why it was so important to keep them.
And so the planets and stars will occasionally kill life.
Because life is not fullfilling their duties, And the planets and stars know their time is limmited and short.

So Life is forced to advance, Forced to crawl the universe by the threat of extinction and utter destruction, Just how the planets and stars were forced to create life, in order to have their memory and samples preserved, From one end of the universe to the other.

Now these are all just metaphors, I hope you enjoyed my story i created to get this point across.
As the point is the true meaning of life, and all of our existance is fundamentally based on these principals.

The planets and stars are not yours tinker with, these forces have awareness and will destroy you. Make no mistake about the ambitions of the heavens. For the heavens are even timed, and they don't have time for you're bull#.
We either remeber and carry our legacy with us, Or we are erased and replaced by something else that will acomplish the task of preservation...






This would of happened as a myth, Because this myth actually never happened. It is just a metaphor. You must read and understand the metaphor.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: Astyanax
Something else occurred to me about the evolutionary importance of this particular bias. In terms of our understanding of the natural world, it has only been recently that humans have even had the time to "figure out" why things work the way they do.

As hunter/gatherers, those that simply didn't accept things are the way they are because they were designed that way, wouldn't have been seen as "built for survival". Those that would have spent their time trying to figure out "why trees are green" or "why the sky is blue" or "why rocks are pointy" wouldn't have been doing what they needed to do on a daily basis to survive and provide for the survival of their group, mainly hunt, gather, provide shelter, avoid predators. While those that did have this natural bias simply would have chalked those answers up to the simpler teleological arguments and wouldn't have wasted the time on them.

As an agrarian society, humans still did not have the time to worry about such things. Each day was tending to crops, looking after livestock, providing for the community. As technology has increased, humans spent less and less time, daily, on "survival". This presented the opportunity to move cognitive development further toward examining natural explanations. So, if we were going to predict further development, those that have an easier time shaking the teleological for the scientific will be better suited to "survive" as technology plays an ever increasing role in our daily lives and survival. However as we are very communal and generally empathetic as a species, those that are stuck in the teleological will still "survive" do to the rest of the group not allowing them to "die out", as they would naturally.

The concept of an actual "creator" has to be instilled in the young by their authority figures. From the "Why Rocks are Pointy" examples . . . Children don't agree that "rocks are pointy" due to a specific entity, just that they were "designed that way" for a purpose. The example given to the students was "so animals have some place to scratch themselves". It is the mature developed mind that seeks the answer of "who" was responsible. And, it's why we see every culture coming up with a different "who".

Or, whatever . . .

Human beings always asked the hard questions about existence. And some of the other hominids probably did too. The existence of decoration and rituals (especially ritual burial) makes this very clear. Even the hominids who didn't do these things may have considered these issues in a more rudimentary way.

Early man didn't have the tools to find the answers we can find today. And he probably didn't have the vocabulary or experience to make overly subtle demarcations. (But maybe he did.) But he nonetheless sought answers. He had the same brain we do. The human brain just keeps working. It thinks. It asks questions. It proposes answers. It just can't help itself.

a reply to: Moresby

ritual burials are based on the principals of remeberance.

As they are often marked with the name of the person usually, or left with worldly belongings that would of identified the person.

its all based on the process of remeberence and aknowledgement, the fundamental principals of advanced consiousness.
Which allows us to create all things of the mind. It allows technology to be created, passed on and studied. It is what drives a species to procreate, it is what drives plants to create seeds.
For what is reproduction? but not a process of repeated remeberance?
Exactly. Is your mind blown yet?

It is the driving force, it is the law.

When I became aware of The Universal Law of Consequence, it became obvious that "God" could not just make magic happen. Nothing happens without something giving rise to it. Action begets reaction. Inaction begets continued inaction until acted upon to bring action. All that stuff.

So then it became clear that Adam's rib was just a yarn. On a side note, as i delved into esoterica I learned that Adam's rib wasn't a yarn.

Evolution is obvious to the non-Abrahamic. It is the basis of animal husbandry, the cornerstone of agriculture. I am honestly mystified why anyone would argue against it.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Moresby

ritual burials are based on the principals of remeberance.

As they are often marked with the name of the person usually, or left with worldly belongings that would of identified the person.

its all based on the process of remeberence and aknowledgement, the fundamental principals of advanced consiousness.
Which allows us to create all things of the mind. It allows technology to be created, passed on and studied. It is what drives a species to procreate, it is what drives plants to create seeds.
For what is reproduction? but not a process of repeated remeberance?
Exactly. Is your mind blown yet?

It is the driving force, it is the law.

The early ritual burials seem to be more an acknowledgement of transcendence rather than remembrance. And that still was the primary logic behind ritual burial in most human cultures until just a few thousand years ago. In some instances less than that. Remembrance was at best a secondary function, when it was considered at all.

Modern burial rituals, however, are almost all about remembrance.

I think it's pretty cool that you experienced something like an epiphany to learn and understand what you did.

I've had several of these moments in my life, when suddenly a whole bunch of information fused together and finally created a detailed picture to understand.

I don't recall this has also happened with the theory of evolution. If I remember correct I simply added what I learned, and I guess my understanding already took form, before my quest for knowledge answered questions, and filled the missing pieces. With every new thing I learn, my understanding either becomes more complete or it will adapt and change if necessary.

I'd like to add that I'm far from highly educated, and some subjects make me even look like an idiot, but I've always been interested in evolution and other subjects related to it, and I've never had any issues grow an understanding on these subjects.

I still can't wait for new info and data and enjoy the search for it, so I can expand what I already know.

Don't you throw mathematics to me, cause I don't understand a thing about that for example.

Sinter

a reply to: Moresby
And . . . I never claimed humans did not ponder the nature of things

My responses were to Asty, as to why a bias to teleological explanations would have been of evolutionary importance to the still developing mind. A mind that is trying to understand the world around them, while balancing that with the knowledge to survive.

You are conflating that with the behaviors those with a fully developed brain, who would sit and ponder on their down time or around the camp fire at night.

So, I don't disagree with you about asking "hard questions about existence". But, the fact remains that the answers to those questions were teleological in nature and not based on experimentation and testable hypotheses.

Its not all one sides, Likewise humanity could of been created by the previous ventures of a space faring species driven by the sheer force of obtaining and preserving knowledge, Well creating occurances that are too preserved as knowledge and learning from it.

But on any scale, We use identity in any form.

Has there ever been a nation without an identity? Have people ever wondered around saying i am from nowhere. For my people do nothing and are called nothing.

I'm sure a majority of you hold onto your own personal beliefs as well as your identity and say * i am American* * I am Brtish* * I am An iraqi* W.e you chose for your identity. If it was not for the sheer determination of recollection/e.i remebering and all of its facets. Humanity would defenantly not be at the level of understand it is at now.

And survival has thrust us into this.
For impossiblities do not exist, Example. If you don't gain sustainance * in this case eating for humans* You will die.
Similarly, sustance referse to Air, rest, and communication- the feeding of knowledge and hense force memories- consiousness.

It does not take a leap of faith to realize that in order for the human race to thrive the enivitable destruction of earth and our star. We will have to carry the memories/teachings/materials- life essence and all of its creations of our planet.... With us.

The signifigence of the sheer determination to survive and recall/recollect/reconstruct and construct are all based on these driving factors of what is life? And why? Surely you can see the answers for it all.
Seeds and animals become symbiotic with humans because they trust us to preserve them. Carry them with us away from destruction. (they may not all realize it initially but the DNA codes towards this, being true)

Adaptation through symbiosis, Dogs are genetically bred to respond to humans. Known fact, a majority of you probably have dogs.
Wild animals are different, And the differnce is in the species trust with us. Germs and pathogens make up the building blocks of our genetic material, So we carry their memory and information with us, their collective physical drive.

we will carry the banner of Earth and Sol through the cosmos, You cannot deny the signifigence of this action. Because the Earth and sol will be dead, But we will carry all of her possessions and her spirits with us.

How signifigant is that.... Now imagine species that escapes their demise millions of years ago....
Evolution does occure... but when you are a protegy of a species that is doing currently right now in real time what humans will be doing later, it complicates things.

Understanding evolution and the chance of possibilities you also have to believe that humans were not guaranteed.
Then you have to think how crazy a world seems without the realizations we have made.

Then I consider that the universe has a common evolution, some things diversify but others stay the same.
Evolving of the mind as well as the body.

a reply to: solomons path

That was a fascinating sequence of posts. love ats for these rare gems. I'm now reading the links.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: Moresby
And . . . I never claimed humans did not ponder the nature of things

My responses were to Asty, as to why a bias to teleological explanations would have been of evolutionary importance to the still developing mind. A mind that is trying to understand the world around them, while balancing that with the knowledge to survive.

You are conflating that with the behaviors those with a fully developed brain, who would sit and ponder on their down time or around the camp fire at night.

So, I don't disagree with you about asking "hard questions about existence". But, the fact remains that the answers to those questions were teleological in nature and not based on experimentation and testable hypotheses.

There's every evidence that early man did not settle for teleological explanations. This is obvious from cave paintings, decorative jewelry, ritual burial and so on. And young children also don't seek teleological explanations. Nor do they find them convincing. They usual prefer fanciful explanations usually derived from a bizarre use of analogy. Neither teleological nor logical conclusions are of any interest to them. In fact, if a child is asked why rocks are pointy his answer may be completely arbitrary, like, "Because you look like a monkey."

Early man probably relied much more on his animistic view of the world. He likely used this to seek metaphysical analogies rather than teleological ones. His world was completely alive and could be cajoled and encouraged to bend to his needs. We still bear the traces of this in the ease with which we anthropomorphize everything around us.

a reply to: Moresby

As someone who has worked with children as an educator, developmental psychologist, and a parent . . . I'm not sure you understand children or their cognitive processes, at all, based on your last response. Maybe you do not understand what teleological means or you are only aware of the term in regards to the philosophy of Aristotle?

Early man probably relied much more on his animistic view of the world. He likely used this to seek metaphysical analogies rather than teleological ones.

This sentence is a good example of why I said the above, especially when you compare that with the definition of teleological, in regards to biology. On one hand you are saying that humans are not hardwired for teleological explanations . . . yet you then claim they seek "metaphysical analogies"? What exactly is the difference? Unless you are trying to make a argument about philosophy, which this isn't, how is describing causation to "metaphysics" or the supernatural not a teleological argument?

Teleological:

Definition of TELEOLOGY

1
a : the study of evidences of design in nature
b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature
c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2
: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3
: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

ADJ: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature

MW dictionary

Full Definition of METAPHYSICAL

1
: of or relating to metaphysics
2
a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
b : supernatural
3
: highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical
4
often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery

MW dictionary

And, what does their cave art, jewelry, ritual burial have to do with having a bias toward explanations of design or purpose to describe natural phenomena? Don't you think the natural human bias for teleology leads to seeking a "supernatural" (or metaphysical) answer?

Please, if you have evidence that counters any of the research in cognitive development, since the mid-90's . . . I'd love to see it. Why then, according to you, do children start to ask "why" questions around the age of 4 and what role does that play in their development? Why are humans so averse to changing from this bias to the teleological explanations, superstition, and the supernatural when they are reinforced by parents or elders during development? What evidence can you show me that children will give arbitrary answers, like your monkey example, when asked about such things as rocks? Did you read the studies, which were posted in FREE .pdf form, to see how the studies were presented to the students and how they responded? How do you account for the evidence seen so far, if not true? What errors in Kelemen's presentation led to the strong evidence supporting her conclusions?

Again, as a parent and educator, I see nothing in your last post that coincides with my experiences or any of the evidence I have seen others present. In fact, I'm not sure we are even using the same definition of teleology based on your response or that you even have much real world experience with kids with sentences like:

They usual prefer fanciful explanations usually derived from a bizarre use of analogy. Neither teleological nor logical conclusions are of any interest to them.

You do realize that most teleological explanations are fanciful . . . and often invoke the supernatural or "metaphysical"? And try raising a child . . . they are always interested in ALL conclusions. They are sponges. It is just that they have a natural bias to the teleological explanation over the natural, when given the choice.

But, I'd love to see the evidence you base your argument on.

a reply to: Kandinsky

It's come as a series of epiphanies beginning in the mid-90s and continuing to the present day. Attenborough's Private Life of Plants was a profound moment for me and the incomprehensible busyness of natural selection leaves me with a greater sense of wonder than childhood half-thought notions of what God might be.

I'd call it the 'comprehensible busyness', but I understand exactly what you mean. It's astonishing how life exploits every possible source of sustenance, every existing niche, so opportunistically; and once you understand evolution, you understand how and why that happens. And yes, indeed....

it's been fascinating to read about parasitology as it can be indicative that we and other life-forms aren't just biological 'robots,' we're even more complex than that. Our own sense of conscious sovereignty can be false when our behaviour becomes dictated to by parasites. By extension, these relationships are more daunting evidence of diversity through natural selection because a small population pool of hosts can accommodate many generations. A single host can move miles from the infection site and become host to something that evolves into a new taxa.

Parasitology provides numerous remarkable illustrations of the so-called 'extended phenotype', and shows clearly how all life on Earth seems to form an integrated, codependent web. But to me the manipulation of hosts by parasites actually underscores what automatons all living things, even very sophisticated ones like ourselves, really are.

When a parasite-infested fish turns on its side to scratch itself against a rock, thereby flashing a silver beacon saying 'dinner is served' at the fish-eating birds which are the parasite's host for the other half of its life-cycle; or when a malaria patient's temperature rises at dawn and dusk, purely to guide the thermotropic mosquitoes that are the fluke's other host in for a landing, we see the truly mechanistic nature of life in action; but we also see what marvellous complexity and sophisticaton can be built up — can emerge — from the simplest of elements.

This thread is turning into my personal tribute to Douglas Adams. Allow me to quote him yet again.

To my surprise, I discovered that (my fascination with evolution) was converging with my growing interest in computers... The connection lies in the counter-intuitive observation that complex results arise from simple causes, many times over. It's terribly simple to see this happening in a computer. Whatever complexities a computer produces — modelling wind turbulence, modelling economies or the way light dances in the eye of an imaginary dinosaur — it all grows out of simple lines of code that start with adding one and one, testing the result, and then doing it again. Being able to watch complexity blossom out of this relative simplicity is one of the great marvels of our age.

It's much more difficult to see it happening in the case of the evolution of life. The time scales are so vast and our perspectives so much more complicated by the fact that it's ourselves that we're looking at, but our invention of the computer has for the first time let us get a real feel for how it works — just as our invention of the hydraulic pump first gave us an insight into what the heart was doing and how the circulation of the blood worked. Source

It is probably no coincidence that Richard Dawkins, the most famous exponent of the gene-centred view of evolution and the source of so many people's epiphanies about evolution (including my own), struggled with a fierce addiction to computer programming during most of the Seventies, and only wrote The Selfish Gene because they were having power cuts four days a week in the UK and the computers had to be switched off.

a reply to: Moresby

Human beings always asked the hard questions about existence. And some of the other hominids probably did too. The existence of decoration and rituals (especially ritual burial) makes this very clear.

I agree with you. I think such questions began to trouble us as soon as we developed self-aware egos, as soon as we became conscious of our indiviuality and separation from everything else. In fact, I believe the roots of magic and religion lie in this soil. From what you say, it seems you think so too.

Unlike solomons path, I don't believe that hunter-gatherer humans lacked leisure time. On the contrary, they seem to have had plenty of it. Until the invention of agriculture enslaved us all, we had all the time in the world.

Solomon is correct, though, when he says that children are more given to teleological explanations than adults. Not only can we all provide anecdotal examples of this, but the research he linked to is pretty thorough stuff. Thanks again, SP.

originally posted by: Astyanax
In fact, I believe the roots of magic and religion lie in this soil. From what you say, it seems you think so too.

I would be very interested in seeing you expand on the above, at your leisure.

originally posted by: undo
i have a few problems with the theory so that resolves to not having a very handsome frame for the setting, is what you mean?

this is my issue.
the theory is that either natural selection will pick the strongest traits from each available option or it will not. if it does not, the species effected will decline in strength instead of upgrade. if this continued long enough there would be few if any species left on the planet because eventually those random downgrades would accumulate and produce unviable lifeforms. on the other hand, if it was constantly upgrading, we would never lose useful traits like regenerating limbs, water breathing, night vision, wings, fur, scales, feathers, hermaphrodism, eagle vision, talons, claws, and so on. mammals would retain features from their evolutionary tree that were most useful for survival.

You forget that in most species there is competition for mating. Ultimately it is the female who decides which male is the strongest. Then we get all sorts of creatures like peacocks and those baboons with the bright red bits and mandrills.

Our genes code for specific proteins and enzymes. If these are critical to survival; brain function, digestion, muscles, signalling, skin, hair, any mutations are fatal. If they aren't critical or are duplicated (some genes for muscle tissue are duplicated eight times) then mutations can be tolerated. DNA also seems to have a recording system to determine which genes have been used or are functional (histones). So it could be that the next generation of offspring could be "designed" by checking to see which genes have been most used by both parents and selecting those during cell division.

a reply to: Astyanax

I don't know what moment evolution really took hold.....but I do know when I figured out Christianity was obviously bs.


About 18 or 19, not long after the internet had kicked off, I can to the personal revelation that the 2 biggest questions before mankind were,

A: what is the truth behind the religions?


B: are we the only intelligent life in the universe?


I attacked every book, documentary or historical website I could find. Mainly researching Christianity, since it was the one I had grown up with and knew the most about. Needles to say I was shocked. Looking into the older versions of biblical stories like the chronicals of Gilgamesh. What early Jews or Christians thought and how they worshipped. The merger of paganism and Christianity and editing by Constantine. It was obvious that the infallibility if the bible wasn't even on the table.

So then I began looking into the over all concepts that had done complete 180's. The final straw was the addition of hell As a fiery place of torment that all unbelievers go. Jews nor early Christians believed in that kind of hell. It's a creation of dark ages Europe where the pool pit preachers figured out they got more peoe to listen to them by saying " you'll burn in hell forever" then teaching " you go to heaven in you believe".


After learning this I was discusted with my southern baptist "hell fire and brimstone" preachers. Either they we lying every Sunday or they had never bothered to do any research.


After being awakened to the ridiculous of Christianity, I was able to look at the other religions without rose colored glasses. It was a very short jump to atheism, science and evolution after that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My pleasure: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can skip the somewhat redundant preamble and begin with '1. Emergent Consciousness Threatened by Instinct'