Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
You might not be too pleased with it. At the rate we're going survival of the fittest now favours the inferior (for a want of a better word). Stupid people have more kids, it's not a nice thing to say but it's true. If you want to see what's in store for the future of the human race, check out a comedy film called Idiocracy.
Idiocracy is a truely brilliant film... its genius is its dumbness. Its dumbness is its truth. its truth is its brilliance....
Idiocracy is a truely brilliant film... its genius is its dumbness. Its dumbness is its truth. its truth is its brilliance....
Emptiness is form, form is emptiness...?
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In this TED talk the lecturer makes a point towards the end where with the advent of human level learning we have sort of taken an exponential leap in evolution. Where in the past an organism would have to evolve over hundreds or thousands of generations to develop a new skill to adapt to their environment. Now we can do this in one lifetime by language and skill transfer.
In general its about increasing levels of complexity through time in the universe and how it also becomes more fragile. It seems to fit in with the direction this thread has taken.
@person- link re-routes you back to this page...... D'oh!
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Oops, thanks, here it is for real this time
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I recently learned about the development and growth of grasslands which overtook many forested areas starting about 7 million years ago. This taking over of previously forested habitat of our primate ancestors is thought to be the reason some of them left the trees and began to walk in search for food.
Where in the past an organism would have to evolve over hundreds or thousands of generations to develop a new skill to adapt to their environment. Now we can do this in one lifetime by language and skill transfer.
It's also our greatest weakness. Most animals, if separated from their parents at a young age, can fend for themselves and know how to be whatever kind of animal they are instinctively. The human brain however needs other humans to develop correctly, isolate a child from human society and they won't develop language skills, won't develop an internal monologue and so won't think as we understand the concept. They won't be any more intelligent than a chimp, and won't know how to act like a human, even if reintroduced to human society at a later stage.
Well, @Chrysalid, other than the idea of pre-biological consciousness I'm not really disagreeing with you. When I say 'wanted to walk', I don't mean that those fish were looking ahead a few million years and making plans. I'm not proposing anything teleological. I just mean that when those fish came onto land they did so because they wanted to, and that when our ancestors started to walk upright they did so because they wanted to. When I get out of a chair to walk it is always because I want to. Without this desire I would have no reason not to sit here until I starved to death and rotted away.
In repect of the mechanism of selection this leaves your notion of evolution untouched. But it would explain what fuels the process. This is the bit that is often missing from evolutionary theories.
Whether consciousness can exist independently of brains is really a separate issue, since it would not alter anything in respect of the biological process.
At any rate, this is Schroedinger's argument, that needs and desires play a role in determining behaviour, and behaviour plays a part in determining which mutations become traits. He calls this 'faux-Lamarkism' because it is would not be a teleological process.
If our fish-like ancestors evolved legs because they found it easier to find food, as you say, then this is exactly my point. Clearly they wanted to eat, and this led them to behave in a certain way. It seems an innocuous idea to me, although I'm aware the biologists are sometimes reluctant to award consciousness a role in evolution.
The only problem I have is the idea of them wanting things, like me wanting to get out of a chair or wanting to make a sandwich. Those things aren't imperative to my survival, which is what evolution selects, they're just temporary desires. The way I see it, those fish didn't want things, they just did them, so rather than comparing it getting out of a chair I'd compare it to opening my eyes in the morning. I don't want or choose to open my eyes, I just do it automatically. Why? Because I need to open my eyes to see, I might not necessarily want to see at that particular point in time, I might want to roll over and fall back to sleep, but I do it anyway because it's instinctual.
Same with fish, they seek out food and seek to escape predators instinctively, without thinking or desiring.
Sometimes fish will go for days without feeding. Other times they will feed all day. It seems to have to do with the tide more than anything, for marine fish anyway. Sometimes their bellies are empty, sometimes so full they can't fit another herring, but they bite anyway. So, I think most fish are programmed by nature to feed in a certain way. I doubt if they think about it much.
Stupid people have more kids, it's not a nice thing to say but it's true.
Really? I know that poor people have more kids, and that poor people often have worse education than wealthier people, but I wouldn't necessarily put it like that. In any case global population increase is slowing and will probably plateau somewhere about 9 billion, according to the latest stuff I've read.
Sometimes fish will go for days without feeding. Other times they will feed all day. It seems to have to do with the tide more than anything, for marine fish anyway. Sometimes their bellies are empty, sometimes so full they can't fit another herring, but they bite anyway. So, I think most fish are programmed by nature to feed in a certain way. I doubt if they think about it much.
I doubt they think about much else. But each to his own.
Really? I know that poor people have more kids, and that poor people often have worse education than wealthier people, but I wouldn't necessarily put it like that. In any case global population increase is slowing and will probably plateau somewhere about 9 billion, according to the latest stuff I've read.
Well yeah, I was perhaps exaggerating or generalising. I think the figures are skewed by the fact that very poor people in Africa and Asia tend to have lots of kids simply because the of the higher infant mortality, not because of intelligence. But in the Western world I think intelligence does play a larger role, there are lots of poor people with the smarts to live within their means and so limit the number of kids they have accordingly. There are also still a ridiculous number of people who believe really dumb things, like that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or that condoms are unhealthy.
Comments
Idiocracy is a truely brilliant film... its genius is its dumbness. Its dumbness is its truth. its truth is its brilliance....
In general its about increasing levels of complexity through time in the universe and how it also becomes more fragile. It seems to fit in with the direction this thread has taken.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19015/evolution-samsara#latest
In repect of the mechanism of selection this leaves your notion of evolution untouched. But it would explain what fuels the process. This is the bit that is often missing from evolutionary theories.
Whether consciousness can exist independently of brains is really a separate issue, since it would not alter anything in respect of the biological process.
At any rate, this is Schroedinger's argument, that needs and desires play a role in determining behaviour, and behaviour plays a part in determining which mutations become traits. He calls this 'faux-Lamarkism' because it is would not be a teleological process.
If our fish-like ancestors evolved legs because they found it easier to find food, as you say, then this is exactly my point. Clearly they wanted to eat, and this led them to behave in a certain way. It seems an innocuous idea to me, although I'm aware the biologists are sometimes reluctant to award consciousness a role in evolution.
Same with fish, they seek out food and seek to escape predators instinctively, without thinking or desiring.
Sometimes their bellies are empty, sometimes so full they can't fit another herring, but they bite anyway.
So, I think most fish are programmed by nature to feed in a certain way. I doubt if they think about it much.