Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Evolution has not prepared us for this


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 coberst

coberst

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1351 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 09:08 AM

Evolution has not prepared us for this

Humans are animals with self-consciousness. This self-consciousness may show it self to some small degree in other animals but this capacity for self-consciousness makes our species different in kind from other animals and this difference makes all the difference in the world.

Natural evolution produced the human species but there is more than a degree of difference between humans and other animals; there is a difference in kind between us and our animal cousins.

All other animals are creatures of naïve action determined strictly by emotions, i.e. instinct that is obeyed by non reflective programmed action. Humans however are aided or hindered, depending upon the situation, by self knowledge.

Otto Rank informs us that for man “knowledge about himself interferes with naïve action, restrains him and torments without affording him the satisfaction and liberation which the deed grants. He cannot accomplish through action any more because he thinks, because he knows too much. Now man longs for naïve unconsciousness as a source of happiness.”

Evolution by natural selection depends upon naïve preprogrammed action; without this form of unmitigated action natural selection can no longer be a significant factor in human development. Through “too much self-knowledge” we are restricted in our actions. However, through this capacity for abstract thinking, we have a creative side.

Knowing can be a substitute for living; itself a form of experiencing. Human will, resulting from self-knowledge, is the cause of an equal and negative deficit. The active hero resulting from self-knowledge can come to grief because s/he lacks the knowledge of the results of action. The passive individual cannot act because of self-knowledge restricting the will thus developing a feeling of guilt.

“The artist solves it for himself and others since he transposes the will affirmation creatively into knowledge, that is, expresses his will spiritually and changes the unavoidable guilt into ethical ideal formation, which spurs him on and qualifies him for ever higher performance in terms of self-development.”

Quotes from Truth and Reality by Otto Rank

#2 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 10:16 AM

Evolution by natural selection depends upon naïve preprogrammed action;

This appears to quite incorrect. It lies at the heart of your argument, yet you offer it as axiomatic without any justification. Natural selection can act upon any phenotype or behaviour that is underpinned by genes, regardless of whether such behaviour is pre-programmed, or carefully reasoned. You will have a hard time demonstrating otherwise and without such a demonstration your argument is undercut.

#3 coberst

coberst

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1351 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 01:32 PM

Eclogite

The ford automobile was introduced 100 years ago. Examine how much the automobile has changed our life in that 100 years. Technology is the 800 pound gorilla. Technology changes our living environment more in one month than our DNA can change in 100 years.

#4 belovelife

belovelife

    psionicist - preserver lv.143

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1397 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 01:04 PM

Still, alot of animals are aware, think of a cat, if it gets angry it pees or poos
where it is undesireable. One the other side, if a cat is happy, it purrs whenever
you are around. Also cats are in general really nice when it comes to
our young. Normally if you have a cat and a kid, the kid, learning to interact
with a cat, usually gets a purr even when picked up uncomfortably.
So for this direct arguement, I would say that the Idea is based on survival, where
cats have learned that teaching our young
gives better chance of survival then attacking them.

Therefore they learn and teach.

#5 coberst

coberst

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1351 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 01:17 PM

belovelife

I suspect that you would find that studying psychology to be a delightful experience. We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

#6 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 08:07 AM

Eclogite

The ford automobile was introduced 100 years ago. Examine how much the automobile has changed our life in that 100 years. Technology is the 800 pound gorilla. Technology changes our living environment more in one month than our DNA can change in 100 years.


Your response does not seem to have any connectivity at all with my objection to your thesis. Did you misunderstand the nature of my objection? I can rephrase it, if that will help.

#7 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 04:33 PM

Evolution has no sense of direction other than selective advantage. Where the human mind departs from evolution is by giving us a sense of direction. Evolution walks around with a blindfold and therefore takes a lone time for change. The human mind can take off the blindfold and stack the deck regardless of genetics to make that change happen using a straight line. Even with dog breeding, we can ignore evolution and place the dogs on a faster ordered track.

#8 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 12 October 2010 - 10:42 AM

Evolution has no sense of direction other than selective advantage. Where the human mind departs from evolution is by giving us a sense of direction. Evolution walks around with a blindfold and therefore takes a lone time for change. The human mind can take off the blindfold and stack the deck regardless of genetics to make that change happen using a straight line. Even with dog breeding, we can ignore evolution and place the dogs on a faster ordered track.


While I agree with the thrust of your comment I think that understanding of Evolution is advanced if you consider it in terms of reproductive success. Doing so gets one out of all the metaphysical assumptions.

The differences in evolutionary rate that you allude to simply reflect different factors that can influence reproductive success. Perhaps you should take a look at the work of Stephen Jay Gould. His observations about the varying rates of Evolution within identified groups at different periods in the group history is a yardstick of the changes in survival-stress. The process is continual, but the speed of change is quite variable. Evolution is slow when the environment is benign and accelerates when the environment threatens survivability.

Stock breeding of plants and animals doesn't ignore evolution, it simply changes reproductive success in organisms that exhibit some desired characteristic. The "artificially" induced change is still evolution regardless of the the active agent, whether by human intervention or by threatening environmental change.

I'm not disagreeing with you, merely recasting your point minus the metaphysics.

#9 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 12 October 2010 - 01:08 PM

If we include reproductive success, what about homosexuality? This orientation assures very little, if any such success. One might also note that those with the most advantages within culture; wealthy, tend to have fewer children than those much less well off. Does that mean the poor are better connected to evolution due to natural selective advantage; maybe less synthetic since natural is not based on all that synthetic stuff. Once we add the human mind, humans can turn the evolutionary arguments upside down.

#10 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 12 October 2010 - 03:21 PM

If we include reproductive success, what about homosexuality? This orientation assures very little, if any such success.


Which suggests that genetics probably plays a very minor, or indirect, role in homosexuality. Most likely a combination of prenatal hormonal factors and social learning.


One might also note that those with the most advantages within culture; wealthy, tend to have fewer children than those much less well off. Does that mean the poor are better connected to evolution due to natural selective advantage; maybe less synthetic since natural is not based on all that synthetic stuff.


I would suggest that every living organism is "connected to evolution". In today's world humans are subjected to very few pressures that require adaptive changes. You need to remember that mutations, allele modifications, or diploid combinations occur randomly. They are potentially reinforced randomly. Only when survival depends on some genetic change do those random modifications have the potential for higher reproductive success. And for some species time runs out before some random change occurs in enough of the population to increase survivability.

Once we add the human mind, humans can turn the evolutionary arguments upside down.


I have absolutely no idea what that means. It's the human gonads that propel human evolution not the "human mind". B)

#11 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:37 AM

Which suggests that genetics probably plays a very minor, or indirect, role in homosexuality. Most likely a combination of prenatal hormonal factors and social learning.

I don't think it suggests that at all. This extract from a New Scientist articleoffers several plausible reasons why genetically determined homosexuality could have an evolutionary advantage.


Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).

#12 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:44 AM

I am not trying to bring up homosexuality, but if this orientation has group advantages, the selfish gene theory needs to be revised. The benefits that are given to the group are unselfish, with respect to reproduction, where the instinct for the needs of the group, are replacing the selfish needs of the individual.

I tend to believe there are two evolutionary imperatives. One is survival of the individual and the other the survival of the group or species. Sometime the individual survival may not be optimized for the needs of the group. While group survival may not always be optimized for the needs of the selfish individual. Nature looks for a balance. The logical reason is the group is more than the sum of the parts, since the group brings additional benefits. This adds even more to individual selective advantage.

For example, social order not only needs a chain of command but a willingness to assume the subordinate roles. If all were purely selfish genes this would break down into every man for themselves, threatening group survival. There would be no willingness to find a spot in the group to maximize group cohesion. If the herd breaks down, due to selfish genes, even the dominant male now has to stand along making him stand out to predators. Others needs to become selfless for the group, so the strength of the group benefits all. With the group strong, even the dominant male gains some hidden benefits he won't have on his own with respect to survival.

Human culture is dependent on group survival and cooperation. Humans make all types of laws to instinctively limit the selfish genes of the individual, so the group is stronger. With the parameters sets for the group, the individual then tries to optimize their own selfish genes. But if the selfish genes go to far, culture starts to break down into chaos, then all are threatened.

A good analogy is the spoiled child. This child can only maintain being spoiled, because he has a family group to support this. If his group broke down so all the logistics break down, he will not be able to satisfy the same level of being spoiled. He needs to keep the group strong. He may shift behavior to be less of a burden, or keep pushing until he helps break down the logistics. If that happens, he may instinctively understand the importance of group support replacing the selfish genes with selfless genes.

#13 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 16 March 2011 - 02:40 PM

Are now not nearing the technological point where we will be able to choose the future course of our evolution? Scientists are making great strides in the manipulation of dna, and in livestock science has already just about perfected genomics, where they can selectively breed cows for speciffic desired traits based on speciffic genes. And let's not forget that there are scientists working on merging us directly with computer chips so we will be able to surf the internet just by thinking about it! Could our future, if we last long enough, make us like the Borg from Star Trek?

#14 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 11:48 AM

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).


In humans there's more going on than what happens in animals. Animals don't completely change their emotional sex when engaged in homosexual activities, humans do.

In human pairing, one becomes the 'male' persona (whether male or female) the other, the 'female' persona. In that respect human homosexual couples are really male-female, not male-male, or female-female.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I've noted a pattern.

#15 Joni

Joni

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:29 PM

In humans there's more going on than what happens in animals. Animals don't completely change their emotional sex when engaged in homosexual activities, humans do.

In human pairing, one becomes the 'male' persona (whether male or female) the other, the 'female' persona. In that respect human homosexual couples are really male-female, not male-male, or female-female.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I've noted a pattern.


Now that's just not true. I'm pretty sure you aren't gay and also haven't had much immersion in gay communities.

What are you even talking about concerning "female" and "male"? Is this about the emotional relationship or sex? Contrary to popular belief those certainly are not one and the same.

If you define "female" as submissive and "male" as dominant, then that can be the case in both relationship and sex, but doesn't have to be at all. Not even in heterosexual relationships.

Does a sadistic woman having sex with a masochistic man represent the male role? Is the penetrated partner always submissive? Does there have to be a dominant and submissive part at all?

The answer is "no" to all those questions.

Edited by Joni, 30 July 2012 - 07:30 PM.

  • JMJones0424 likes this

#16 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 02 October 2016 - 06:42 PM

Humans = self-awareness

self-awareness = ability to know

 

Your argument is that the ability to know defies natural selection, or the means of natural selection, yet natural selection has produced something that opposes it.

Natural selection has become self-opposition. Why?

 

If self-opposition is derivative of the source, the interim should be correct if it's meant to be undone.

 

source = self-opposition A

humans = self-opposition B

 

Self-opposition B = means of A

self-opposition A = means of B

 

means of A = post

means of B = pre

 

post = anti-source

pre = anti-humans

 

The source creates humans, in its image, but because creation requires anti, the source can't know what it's done - the source isn't aware of humans.

 

Humans are the source, but separate. The source and humans are the means to resolution, but because of duplication the means to the resolution is reversal: humans has to fold reality back onto itself.

 

 



#17 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 12:21 AM

Evolution has not prepared us for this

Humans are animals with self-consciousness. This self-consciousness may show it self to some small degree in other animals but this capacity for self-consciousness makes our species different in kind from other animals and this difference makes all the difference in the world.

Natural evolution produced the human species but there is more than a degree of difference between humans and other animals; there is a difference in kind between us and our animal cousins.

All other animals are creatures of naïve action determined strictly by emotions, i.e. instinct that is obeyed by non reflective programmed action. Humans however are aided or hindered, depending upon the situation, by self knowledge.

Otto Rank informs us that for man “knowledge about himself interferes with naïve action, restrains him and torments without affording him the satisfaction and liberation which the deed grants. He cannot accomplish through action any more because he thinks, because he knows too much. Now man longs for naïve unconsciousness as a source of happiness.”

Evolution by natural selection depends upon naïve preprogrammed action; without this form of unmitigated action natural selection can no longer be a significant factor in human development. Through “too much self-knowledge” we are restricted in our actions. However, through this capacity for abstract thinking, we have a creative side.

Knowing can be a substitute for living; itself a form of experiencing. Human will, resulting from self-knowledge, is the cause of an equal and negative deficit. The active hero resulting from self-knowledge can come to grief because s/he lacks the knowledge of the results of action. The passive individual cannot act because of self-knowledge restricting the will thus developing a feeling of guilt.

“The artist solves it for himself and others since he transposes the will affirmation creatively into knowledge, that is, expresses his will spiritually and changes the unavoidable guilt into ethical ideal formation, which spurs him on and qualifies him for ever higher performance in terms of self-development.”

Quotes from Truth and Reality by Otto Rank

I would disagree about animals not being self conscious.  Awareness of self, wants, and desires is innate in all higher order life.  A dog knows if he sits and speaks on command that he will get the treat he wants.  A fish knows when a person approaches the tank that he is about to be fed and comes to the top of the tank.  A parakeet while sit on your shoulder and nuzzle your ear as a sign of affection or bite it when he is peeved.  Horses, cows, sheep, goats, llamas, alpacas and other animals will come over to the fence for a treat when humans approach.  Even hand raised reptiles will show some sign of intelligence and a connection with their owner.  My sister's 6 foot long iguana would perch on her shoulders with his tail hanging down her back and rest his head on her head, happy, warm, and content.  It is true that humans are, for the most part, capable of restraining their more basic urges and using logic and reasoning on situations that present themselves.  Animals on the other hand yield to their instincts when not trained otherwise.  The ability of animals to be trained would indicate some degree of intelligence.  Human infants are born stupid and helpless and only learn how to respond to society and to care for themselves over many years.  Otto Rank's quote is largely Anthropocentric and demeaning to all but Homo Sapiens.  If you will excuse me now, I am going to spend some quality time with my millipedes on the side porch.