Making peace with femininity

[Dave Toast]

Please note, my vocabulary is quite limited, and I would always welcome if someone gets the gist of what I’m trying to say and express it in much better terms.

I do struggle to extract the exact meaning from your phraseology occasionally so just let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick anywhere.

DT: I'm not so sure that mentality or memories are literally passed on genetically, but you can make a good case as to how they are figuratively.

Sap: Yes, I don’t mean it as an exact ‘reincarnation’ of an ancestor, with all or part of personal memory intact, but in a much deeper sense related to RNA rather than DNA. RNA is not fully understood as I understand it. I haven’t much knowledge about it either. If you click the “about RNA” icon in this picture, and go forward two pages, you will see the different types of RNA, and suspicion of probably there being more smaller RNA’s.

Yep, there might well be as yet unexplained mechanisms at work that allow inheritance of acquired characteristics. What I'm saying though is that such a mechanism isn't needed in order to explain inheritance of learned traits, or indeed evolution by natural selection (now it's been mentioned).

DT: In a certain sense, traits are produced genetically by definition as it simply means an inherited characteristic, although obviously not all traits are inherited. These genetic traits are then liable to produce certain mentalities.

Sap: Exactly, but traits inherited could be because of numerous complex reasons, and not necessarily from two or three generations back, but may be ten or even twenty or more generations back. It could be more like a dormant gene passing on generation-to-generation, and may be triggering ten generation later. And what passes on is may be just a few percent of what one of the ancestor had, and may be a few percent of another, and so on.

Yep, the bigger picture.

Sap: Rest of the major part is left blank for me to develop my own unique traits in accordance to my experiences, influenced by the few percent of acquired traits however.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. You can't mean that part of your genome is left blank. Maybe you mean part of what will become your genetic inheritance is left blank to be written by your experiences etc. and will be passed on by some, as yet undiscovered, mechanism? If so, maybe.

Or perhaps you simply mean that not all of your traits are a result of genetic inheritance? If so then they're definitely not but when it comes to genetic inheritance, the term trait strictly refers to a distinct phenotype of a characteristic, as opposed to the more general meaning of any particular distinguishing quality whatsoever. These phenotypes, or rather the genotype that produces them, are the only traits of yours that are selected, proliferated, mutated and variated, according to evolution by natural selection. In keeping with that theory, the ones that you develop over a lifetime cannot be inherited, except perhaps allowing for some as yet undiscovered mechanism.

The way that you can pass on those acquired traits and knowledge is culturally, via the mechanism of your relative success in proliferating them amongst your progeny, their progeny, and the population in general.

DT: The mentality of this extrovert arsehole, in a very general way, could be said to have been written in stone when his mother and father did the dirty.

Sap: Or even say the "good" work done twenty generations back,

Lol, I guess so. Although Catholics might disagree.

but it may be relatively quite a small RNA transfer, but deeply seated and partially effecting how a person "thinks", but thinks HE does, in the most unique fashion as an end result.

Again, maybe so. But it should be understood that such processes can be understood in the context of genetic inheritance in conjunction with cultural inheritance.

DT: More and more we are seeing that DNA and RNA are responsible for inherited traits previously unthought. Likewise we are understanding more and more about just how big a part inheritance plays in every aspect of our lives, mentality included.

Sap: I have no doubt about all that. We may be basically in the “kindergarten” as far as our knowledge in that field goes.

I don't think there's any 'may be' about it. This science is definitely still in nappies (daipers).

DT: I think you were referring more specifically to learned traits though. The way you use the example of increased intelligence seems a red herring to me in that it is more likely through cultural heritage, rather than genetic, that accumulated knowledge is passed on and assimilated more quickly and readily in successive generations.

Sap: No, what I mean here is that our capacity of grasping intellectually has increased tremendously over the past say 10 thousand years, and especially in the last two hundred years. It’s like how the speed of a processor has been doubling every year, increasing to every six months for the last two ~ three years

In part yeah. Its rate of expansion is hardly going to be commensurate with Moore's Law but you could make an argument as to how phenotypes that succeed in proliferating increasingly greater comprehension skills have been favoured by the selective pressures of recent history. But you wouldn't see the qualitative differences in the space of a generation, or indeed a number of generations.

Again though, you could make a far better case which is more in keeping with the evidence available as to how the very same mechanism operates memetically, as opposed to genetically, via cultural inheritance.

Sap: However, certain behavioral patterns could also be RNA related, which too may be transferred, thereby effecting a mentality like you explained about the super-taster. On the other hand, knowledge gained effects behavior and mentality, and a certain change in my mentality, in turn may effect or have a minor change in my RNA pattern deep within, and this change may be passed on to trigger say after some generations, but would be a very minor part with huge effects when that persons experiences are also taken into account, but then too, according to his environment he faces. Say which country is he born in? Does his parents follow a religion? Are they open minded or closed? So although a small portion is acquired, external influences AND his internal OWN thinking, since that is the unique part which is open to all, creates a uniquely new mentality, with far better grasping power than ten generations back.

Again, perhaps but it's all highly speculative and can be explained via cultural inheritance anyway. Cultural inheritance is very powerful and has a massive adaptive effects at a much higher rate of turn over than natural selection. Is there a single person over 25 on the planet who hasn't at some point thought, 'Oh no, I'm turning into my father/mother, even though I was determined not to'?

Sap: Now, I know someone might say that that does not apply to ALL, so one must also keep in mind, extinction happens all the time, and survival of the fittest applies for mental evolution too.

Yep, selection is always operative at some level. And we can only ever generalise when we're talking about populations.

DT: Intelligence wise, we are said to be no more capable today than at the dawn of modern man. It's just that knowledge is accumulated, rationalised, disseminated and thereby absorbed, more and more efficiently.

Sap: And I am thinking exactly in those terms, as species, not according to particular nationality.

Indeed, although nationality will obviously have an effect depending on the over all cultural traits of that nationality but culture operates at all levels, from the individual to the entire populaton.

DT: The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct. Whilst there seems to be no mechanism to explain inherited memory as you propose it, there is definitely a mechanism that produces inherited biological traits, which in turn produce associated mentalities that can justifiably be referred to as inherited.

Sap: I had to lookup ‘moridund’, and I don’t know the ‘Lamarkian idea’ either. I will google it. However, I am suggesting that certain of my “memories” do effect my RNA, which are as good as recording certain of my “memories”, and effecting partially in some far off generation.

I certainly can't disprove it.

So our supertaster who is a picky eater and thereby may become picky in life in general, just as perhaps their father and grandmother were, could be said to have inherited the 'memory' of a 'look before you leap' attitude to a higher degree than those without that trait, as long as we use the term inherited memory less than literally.

Yes, I am not talking in a literal sense, but neither do I think it is all “biological”, but something in between related to say RNA.

Or cultural inheritance. :-)

[Dave Toast]

Shah,

DT: The Lamarkian idea of the inheritance of characteristics aquired during a lifetime, and thereby the mechanism for inherited memories, is now moribund, if not defunct.

Really? This surprises me as I thought that in the future we would find that some acquired features are passed on, otherwise evolution seems much less likely.

Perhaps I should have said it was defunct for a long time, came out of retirement a while back and is now moribund. :-)

Maybe we will find such a mechanism but why do you think that evolution by natural selection seems less likely without it?

[Shahrazad]

Dave,

Maybe we will find such a mechanism but why do you think that evolution by natural selection seems less likely without it?

Isn't it obvious? Mutations are random but an individual will tend to acquire the traits it needs or wants.

Let's say an animal species has a change of environment and needs a much larger nose. If it can broaden its nose by constant use and then pass that trait on to its offspring, the latter would have a survival advantage. If the new trait can not be passed on, we'd have to wait until an individual of that species is born with a large nose because of a random mutation. That mutation can take many generations and the species can go extinct by then.

-

[Dave Toast]

Evolution by natural selection doesn't really work like that though Shah.

It operates on populations as opposed to individuals but I don't think you were saying that it does operate on individuals?

The selective pressure is applied and the population either dies or favourable traits already present proliferate whilst the unfavourable ones do whatever the opposite of the word proliferate is. The recombination of genes within the population thereby continues in a different manner, better adapted to the pressure, than it would have done had the selective pressure not been applied. That's 95% of the mechanism behind evolution by natural selection.

[Sapius]

.

Dave, you seem to know 'evolution' and it's workings much better than I, so it shouldn't be too difficult to see what I'm trying to say.

I do struggle to extract the exact meaning from your phraseology occasionally so just let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick anywhere.

I’m well aware of my shortcomings, but if taken step by step, I might be able to put across the complexity of how I think, which to me seems quite simple.

Yep, there might well be as yet unexplained mechanisms at work that allow inheritance of acquired characteristics. What I'm saying though is that such a mechanism isn't needed in order to explain inheritance of learned traits, or indeed evolution by natural selection (now it's been mentioned).

Now this might get a bit more tricky to explain, however, I’m kind of mixing philosophy with biology, through seeing the dualistic nature of existence.

I believe that ‘mental’ development is a result of “natural selection” too, with “mind” (awareness) being at every level but different in nature, to the depths of say quantum mechanics, however minuscule or unrecognizable that it may be. So please keep that in mind.

As for natural selection; why should natural selection be limited to ‘physical’ natural selection and thereby “physical’ changes only? After all, evolution did prefer to select boosting sentient intelligence instead of battling nature by mutating physical aspects in our case. It preferred to concentrate on ‘mental evolution’ by naturally selecting and boosting the organ that supported logic and reasoning, (by-products or side-effects of that aspect, to me is but a proof which points to its progress through its selective nature through a ‘trial and error’ method, which further proves that there is no “sentient intelligence” working behind it), which now did not require much further physical changes, a tremendously much slower process otherwise. By triggering the sense of curiosity, which can be seen in say almost any life form going back millions of years, which translates into the sense of wonder and discovery in say some animals, which when coupled with higher and higher sense of sentient inelegance, results in what we are today.

Again, maybe so. But it should be understood that such processes can be understood in the context of genetic inheritance in conjunction with cultural inheritance.

But it is very much possible to reject the cultural influences, so what meaning does cultural inheritance in that case actually hold? Unless of course, one has an attitude of following the leader, which may be true generally speaking, but many do and have broken out, (mutated in a sense), and by using what? Their OWN reasoning; and this part is what I’m saying is left blank. Ones own unique way of thinking, using logic and reasoning to his own self-centered end, and may be the major influence that may change his deeper being, but may be not as much in another. It all depends on far more complex and extremely numerous reasons than we might be able to calculate. BTW, why do you think it would be preferable to use the sperm or egg of a genius in creating a test-tube baby?

I don't think there's any 'may be' about it. This science is definitely still in nappies (diapers).

Hahaaha… and we’ve had the audacity to think, “I know it all”, at every stage and generation since we first worshiped the Sun God. This is one of the resultant side effects that logic and reasoning actually requires; CONFIDANCE; (which is closely related to EMOTIONS, otherwise the blind passion required wouldn’t be there; and this point actually relates to the topic of this thread, and I have made peace with the ‘feminine’ side of me, and rather used it to go fearlessly in the direction I would like to using my sense of discovery, otherwise, logic generally dictates taking caution and not venturing out into the unknown). CONFIDANCE, which actually helps move forward and/or realize a shortcoming through thoughtful trial and error, and thereby progress mentally, increasing its intellectual capacity in the favor of mental evolution rather than a physical one. You know, in a sense we can create and control the climate by manipulating OUR environmental surroundings; beginning with wearing sheepskin to keep ourselves warm in bitter cold, to creating climate controlled shopping malls. So which part of our physical aspect has evolution favored to develop, and why?

S: No, what I mean here is that our capacity of grasping intellectually has increased tremendously over the past say 10 thousand years, and especially in the last two hundred years. It’s like how the speed of a processor has been doubling every year, increasing to every six months for the last two ~ three years

D: In part yeah. Its rate of expansion is hardly going to be commensurate with Moore's Law but you could make an argument as to how phenotypes that succeed in proliferating increasingly greater comprehension skills have been favoured by the selective pressures of recent history. But you wouldn't see the qualitative differences in the space of a generation, or indeed a number of generations.

But of course, it is very much related to physical evolution and numerous other conditions coming together, hence the time scale need not be a regulated one. Evolution of Existence, as in Totality, needs no time schedules to do what it does, in fact time holds no meaning to it, or anything else for that matter. And all, and I mean absolutely ALL individual things, collapse in the sense that things are in a state of dynamic change, holding certain dimensional form as long as conditions allow, but eventually, ALL and any THING collapses, which means ‘change’ is always in effect.

Again though, you could make a far better case which is more in keeping with the evidence available as to how the very same mechanism operates memetically, as opposed to genetically, via cultural inheritance.

Could you elaborate that a bit more, perhaps by giving a few examples.

Again, perhaps but it's all highly speculative and can be explained via cultural inheritance anyway. Cultural inheritance is very powerful and has a massive adaptive effects at a much higher rate of turn over than natural selection. Is there a single person over 25 on the planet who hasn't at some point thought, 'Oh no, I'm turning into my father/mother, even though I was determined not to'?

I agree that cultural influence is a powerful thing, but I don’t necessarily inherit it, unless I am weak enough and let the emotional side of me rule my logic, rather than the other way around, but both aspects I do have. Determinism is actually a different subject; I believe the NOW determines the NOW, not the infinate “past” that has no beginning, for there really isn’t a “past” as far as Existence of Totality goes.

Indeed, although nationality will obviously have an effect depending on the over all cultural traits of that nationality but culture operates at all levels, from the individual to the entire population.

But of course.

S: Yes, I am not talking in a literal sense, but neither do I think it is all “biological”, but something in between related to say RNA.

D: Or cultural inheritance. :-)

Not necessarily, otherwise we would not have mutated intellectually :D

[Ataraxia]

.As for natural selection; why should natural selection be limited to ‘physical’ natural selection and thereby “physical’ changes only?

Yes,I put that argument to Dan in the 'Emotion, Attachment & Wisdom' thread.It doesn't seem a particularly outrageous claim to me either.

[daybrown]

I see that with the each progressive generation our intelligence seems to increase. The school syllabus for the same grade of 10, or 20, or even more years ago was far too simple than today. What I learnt in the fifth grade is now being taught in the second and children grasp it quite easily.

Based on my observations, I disagree. I'm not alone in this view.

He's got my disagreement too Carl. http://daybrown.org/farmath/farmath.html is a scan of an 1885 8th grade one room country school mathbook that I doubt most high schoolers could deal with today.

Its not stupidity so much as irrationality. Kids, and their parents also, just cannot think clearly. which is why the voters keep electing demagogues. And why campaign ads are 30 seconds, Longer than that, you exceed their attention spans.

With ref to Carl's link, while I spoze there are some moving out of the country, yesterday, I visited a young couple who moved to the country to raise their kids in a cleaner healthier environment. Searcy County AR has a good record in that regard. when the first generation of Hippie kids- whose parents moved there back in the 70's for that very reason- graduated from Leslie HIgh, 20% of the 25 kids in the class on 96 scored over 30 on the ACT. the school had the highest scholastic average in the state.

Another mother told me that when her boy went there, just a few years ago, that graduating class had 8 national merit scholars. This has produced a kind of synergy. Parents wanting a clean environment, locally grown organic food, and good schools have been moving to these Boston mountain towns. The school academic test scores have been posted on the net, so teachers who want to work with kids who want to learn, find this out, and apply despite the salary being so near the bottom. Course, the cost of living is lower.

(10$ for a pickup truck load of scrap slab wood from the saw mill will heat the house for the rest of the winter. My REA COOP Petit Jean Electric bill runs $0.0625 kwhr. You can still find land for less than $1000/acre, and locally cut hardwood for timber framing, flooring, trim, siding, etc. )

The point being that smart people are getting the fuck outta dodge, either to some other nation, or to low profile, low cost rural areas. The mother I spoke with yesterday works on line- off a satellite dish- from her home in the woods. No commutes.

Its difficult to evaluate the results of education today; whatever it is, is it good enuf to compete in the global economy? I dont think whether today's graduates can deal with 5th, or even 8th grade math. The computers do that. The question is whether we are still producing the cadres of exceptional creative genius that has so often fired the economy.

Every professional, engineer, or scientist, creates 5 more jobs for the dolts- shipping clerk, janitor, receptionist, or whatever, and we really dont care a lot about what the dolts know.

[Dave Toast]

I believe that ‘mental’ development is a result of “natural selection” too, with “mind” (awareness) being at every level but different in nature, to the depths of say quantum mechanics, however minuscule or unrecognizable that it may be. So please keep that in mind.

Sorry Sap, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you out it another way for me?

As for natural selection; why should natural selection be limited to ‘physical’ natural selection and thereby “physical’ changes only?

In a way it isn't and in a way it is.

It isn't in that phenotypes are not only examples of physical characterisics but examples of behavioural and developmental characteristics too.

It is in that, whilst phenotypes are the qualities that are selected, the genotype is the quality that is inherited.

After all, evolution did prefer to select boosting sentient intelligence instead of battling nature by mutating physical aspects in our case. It preferred to concentrate on ‘mental evolution’ by naturally selecting and boosting the organ that supported logic and reasoning,

Yes but, within the scope of natural selection, the evolution of mental qualities is a product of the evolution of physical qualities. They are one in the same thing really, there is no divide, it's just that mental qualities are a subset of physical qualities.

(by-products or side-effects of that aspect, to me is but a proof which points to its progress through its selective nature through a ‘trial and error’ method, which further proves that there is no “sentient intelligence” working behind it)

Indeed, just selective pressures and time.

which now did not require much further physical changes, a tremendously much slower process otherwise.

Yep but it would be more accurate to say that major selective pressures have been mitigated to one extent or another by our highly adapted morphology and physiology, our highly adaptive intelligence (a product of our highly adapted physiology) and our highly adaptive cultures (a product of our highly adaptive intelligence); such that our morphology is in relative stasis.

By triggering the sense of curiosity, which can be seen in say almost any life form going back millions of years, which translates into the sense of wonder and discovery in say some animals, which when coupled with higher and higher sense of sentient inelegance, results in what we are today.

I see what you're saying and, in a sense, this is what has happened. But, again, it can all be explained in terms of evolution by natural selection and cultural inheritance.

But it is very much possible to reject the cultural influences, so what meaning does cultural inheritance in that case actually hold?

I'm not sure what you mean. One can't help but be brought up in a culture or cultures.

Unless of course, one has an attitude of following the leader, which may be true generally speaking, but many do and have broken out, (mutated in a sense),

In a sense, the follow the leader attitude is intrinsic in all of us as it is the major mechanism by which we learn initially. It's not easily dropped, to say the least.

But no matter how much an individual may think they've escaped cultural influence, the fact that they've attempted to do that is, in part, a product of their cultural influence in the first place. And they will go on to propagate their own culture and others, wittingly or unwittingly. It's inescapable and the effects go so much deeper than might be immediately apparent.

and by using what? Their OWN reasoning; and this part is what I’m saying is left blank.

Right, I think that was my third answer on the left blank thing then. Here it is again:

"Or perhaps you simply mean that not all of your traits are a result of genetic inheritance? If so then they're definitely not but when it comes to genetic inheritance, the term trait strictly refers to a distinct phenotype of a characteristic, as opposed to the more general meaning of any particular distinguishing quality whatsoever. These phenotypes, or rather the genotype that produces them, are the only traits of yours that are selected, proliferated, mutated and variated, according to evolution by natural selection. In keeping with that theory, the ones that you develop over a lifetime cannot be inherited, except perhaps allowing for some as yet undiscovered mechanism.

The way that you can pass on those acquired traits and knowledge is culturally, via the mechanism of your relative success in proliferating them amongst your progeny, their progeny, and the population in general."

Ones own unique way of thinking, using logic and reasoning to his own self-centered end, and may be the major influence that may change his deeper being, but may be not as much in another. It all depends on far more complex and extremely numerous reasons than we might be able to calculate.

Indeed but it should be noted that one's reasoning ability and what one does with it is inextricably, though obviously not exclusively, linked to one's genetic and cultural inheritance and influence.

BTW, why do you think it would be preferable to use the sperm or egg of a genius in creating a test-tube baby?

Lol, I hope this is a peculiarity of your phraseology as I've never advocated Social Darwinism!

I guess it would be preferable to use the sperm and/or egg of a genius if you wanted the resulting progeny to inherit a genome predisposed to the genius phenotype of the intelligence characteristic.

This is one of the resultant side effects that logic and reasoning actually requires; CONFIDANCE; (which is closely related to EMOTIONS, otherwise the blind passion required wouldn’t be there; and this point actually relates to the topic of this thread, and I have made peace with the ‘feminine’ side of me, and rather used it to go fearlessly in the direction I would like to using my sense of discovery, otherwise, logic generally dictates taking caution and not venturing out into the unknown). CONFIDANCE, which actually helps move forward and/or realize a shortcoming through thoughtful trial and error, and thereby progress mentally, increasing its intellectual capacity in the favor of mental evolution rather than a physical one.

I think it's debatable as to whether logic generally dictates caution, whether confidence necessarily moves one forward or, equally, whether paranoia necessarily holds one back. They look like oversimplifications.

Your point about increasing one's mental capacity being mental evolution rather than explicitly physical can't be argued though. It's just that this mental evolution of which you speak only has an effect within the arena of evolution by natural selection inasmuch as it allows you to survive and propagate your genes. It has a far larger effect culturally insofar as it is a self-fulfilling quality when it comes to its own propagation and proliferation, being as it automatically renders one in possession of such better able to propagate and proliferate it.

You know, in a sense we can create and control the climate by manipulating OUR environmental surroundings; beginning with wearing sheepskin to keep ourselves warm in bitter cold, to creating climate controlled shopping malls. So which part of our physical aspect has evolution favored to develop, and why?

Strictly, evolution by natural selection develops whatever mitigates selection pressures within a population. That's the 'which' of it, the 'why' of it is because selection pressures and the individual's ability to mitigate them dictates their ability to propagate and proliferate their genes.

If you're asking whether I would agree that evolution by natural selection goes on developing our mental capacities and if so why, I'd say that it definitely does because there are always selective pressures and these pressures will produce results. As the world and life become increasingly difficult to navigate, the selective pressures favour the greater proliferation of phenotypes better able to deal with this, like relatively higher mental capacities of one type or another. The genotypes that produce these phenotypes will thereby play the evolutionary game of propagation and proliferation that much better.

Evolution of Existence, as in Totality, needs no time schedules to do what it does, in fact time holds no meaning to it, or anything else for that matter. And all, and I mean absolutely ALL individual things, collapse in the sense that things are in a state of dynamic change, holding certain dimensional form as long as conditions allow, but eventually, ALL and any THING collapses, which means ‘change’ is always in effect.

Without doubt. Evolution is always operative on all things. But evolution by natural selection is a very much more specific delineation of evolution in general. Individuals evolve and an individual's personal evolution might better equip them to play the natural selection game but, at the risk of repeating myself :), that individual's contribution to the next generations is limited to their genome when it comes to natural selection, although they can still convey their developed phenotypes to the next generations via cultural influence.

DT: Again though, you could make a far better case which is more in keeping with the evidence available as to how the very same mechanism operates memetically, as opposed to genetically, via cultural inheritance.

Sap: Could you elaborate that a bit more, perhaps by giving a few examples.

Well, a good case study would be your original postulation about the seeming increase in the comprehension skills of successive generations in recent times. As previously discussed, we could make a case as to how this is due to phenotypes that succeed in proliferating increasingly greater comprehension skills have been favoured by the selective pressures of recent history. But the evidence for this wouldn't add up, being as we see good indicators of this process happening at such a high rate as to suggest generational jumps, yet evolution by natural selection has hardly had a chance to get to work in the space of a generation. The rate of progress is way too fast to be caused by genetic inheritance.

But if we look at it instead using cultural inheritance, we can see that this seeming generational increase in comprehension skills and its phenomenal rate of evolution is more easily explainable in terms of the likes of the evolution of our body of knowledge, of parenting skills and infant education, of general and further education syllabi, methods and institutions, of the demands associated with socialisation, of the media and its methods (i.e. the MTV generation), of the administration and its methods, of increasing societal demands on the individual in general, etc. etc. You could go on forever with this list, depending on the detail you wanted to go into. The point though is that all of these factors and more can easily explain the rate of seeming increase in comprehension skills but evolution by natural selection, in its present understanding, simply can't.

I agree that cultural influence is a powerful thing, but I don’t necessarily inherit it, unless I am weak enough and let the emotional side of me rule my logic, rather than the other way around, but both aspects I do have.

One has no choice but to develop their reasoning capabilities within a culture or cultures. Whilst this process is ongoing, before reasoning capabilities reach critical mass, one doesn't have the reasoning capabilities to be able to reason about whether to take on board one's cultural inheritance and therefore has no choice in it. That is to say nothing of the effects cultural inheritance will have on this individual depsite their best efforts, even if they have decided to shun cultural influence as much as possible.

Of course one does have the option to opt out as you say but that's only once they have developed the ability and means to do such a thing (so the cultural inheritance is already in operation) and even then that by no means guarantees a mindset impervious to cultural influence. In fact, one would have to speculate that this individual would have to have perfect reasoning skills and no delusions or emotional attachments whatsoever if they wanted to be truly free of cultural influence. Even then they'd probably have to live in a cave to pull it off properly.

Sap: Yes, I am not talking in a literal sense, but neither do I think it is all “biological”, but something in between related to say RNA.

DT: Or cultural inheritance. :-)

Sap: Not necessarily, otherwise we would not have mutated intellectually :D

The mechanism of cultural inheritance can quite easily look after that though, at a canter!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I believe that ‘mental’ development is a result of “natural selection” too, with “mind” (awareness) being at every level but different in nature, to the depths of say quantum mechanics, however minuscule or unrecognizable that it may be. So please keep that in mind.

Sorry Sap, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you out it another way for me?

Sapius, are you trying to say that the soul could possibly retain a memory of sorts from one physical incarnation to another, or are you thinking more along the lines that mental development could change the genetic structure in a way that could be passed on to offspring, or both, or something else?

I would agree with the possibility of either or both.

[brokenhead]

Your point about increasing one's mental capacity being mental evolution rather than explicitly physical can't be argued though.

The genotype and phenotype go hand in hand.

Let's say the increase in mental capacity of humans is reflected in the "success" of the species, a gauge of which would be global population. I went here to get some figures, which I plugged into Excel for the chart below.

This is a striking picture. Population begins to rise at just about the time of the advent of written language, i.e., at the dividing line between pre-history and history. Then it really takes off for the vertical at about 1400 - 1500 A.D. The year 1440 was the invention of the printing press. That's pretty much the "corner," or inflection point, on this graph.

The human phenotype has not changed dramatically since 1440. The human head is about the same size and we are still using only about 10% of our brain cells, according to scientists.

It's almost as if the phenotype changed in advance of the more recent demands of higher learning made possible by the written record, and that our potential is still untapped.

[Shahrazad]

Broken,

Can you draw a bigger picture or with a better resolution? I can't see that one. Thanks.

And are you equating higher population with higher learning? The connection does not seem obvious to me.

.

[spelnxpert]

Laird wrote:

Let me ask you then, Sue, whether you consider that it's possible to live a life in which love and not hatred is the norm, in which one uses rational, willful thought such that as negative emotions arise, one reflects on their unhelpful/unfair consequences and gradually trains one's mind into a more generally loving one?

Wow, this really blew me away, I want to believe it and damn it - DO believe it! I mean, everyone has heard the golden rule right? still the world is still a very violent place, does this work very well then? Maybe not. Christ, I want it to work, WHO DOESNT? still we remain greedy and love the neighbors lawn and wife and husband above our own, don't we very often.
Shit.

Maybe it's too difficult to think clearly when having strong mad emotions, seems reasonable. I suppose a huge step would be to learn to not act impulsively, but when some maniac is bashing you kids skull in right in front of you and is about to head for the crib, well who can think about anything other than How to knock his block off asap, right?
And would such a thought be necessarily faulty in this circumstance? You cant just call all violent ideas even impulsive ones "faulty", right Laird? In some cases time is of essence and impulses may provide the best solution, it can't be ruled out.

Another thought - isn't the most rational approach achieved when no emotion is swaying the mind, suggesting that Sue's idea about losing emotions alltogether points in the same direction as yours?

[DHodges]

The human head is about the same size and we are still using only about 10% of our brain cells, according to scientists.

The Ten Percent Myth

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Wow, this really blew me away, I want to believe it and damn it - DO believe it! I mean, everyone has heard the golden rule right? still the world is still a very violent place, does this work very well then? Maybe not.

Nothing works if it is not applied.

Christ, I want it to work, WHO DOESNT? still we remain greedy and love the neighbors lawn and wife and husband above our own, don't we very often.

That doesn't mean that the goal is unattainable, only that the methods applied in general so far are not sufficiently effective.

Maybe it's too difficult to think clearly when having strong mad emotions,

One can love, yet not be madly in love. It is even possible (though really rarely done, as few people today take control of their minds) to be in love without the madness. That means having a pure love above all, which manifests in such ways as being truthful even at the risk of causing the other to be unhappy with you, loving enough to let go if the relationship is either unworkable or of bad timing, and that means really letting go, including emotional attachment - not just paying lip service and sulking off.

I suppose a huge step would be to learn to not act impulsively, but when some maniac is bashing you kids skull in right in front of you and is about to head for the crib, well who can think about anything other than How to knock his block off asap, right?

Even that is a leap of logic. The reasonable reaction is "How do I stop this maniac ASAP?" Knocking his block off might be effective, but might not be as expedient as pinning him to the ground. Something more violent may be necessary, but by not acting impulsively, you won't overlook the better solution.

Another thought - isn't the most rational approach achieved when no emotion is swaying the mind, suggesting that Sue's idea about losing emotions alltogether points in the same direction as yours?

Considering the positive effects of positive yet controlled emotions, is it truly rational to eliminate the good emotions along with the bad? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?

[Sapius]

He's got my disagreement too Carl. http://daybrown.org/farmath/farmath.html is a scan of an 1885 8th grade one room country school mathbook that I doubt most high schoolers could deal with today.

Sure, Daybrown, and neither is plastic surgery or open heart surgery really a modern achievement, but an ancient lost art, reacquired in recent times. Only that we are far more hygienic now and loose less patients than ancient times. Daybrown, you of all people should be aware that knowledge was acquired and lost in almost every age, and with the ups and downs of environmental and social conditions our cumulative status rides the rough open seas. We have reentered riding the high tide since the recent Dark Age, and a Dark Age follows every Golden age. Look back just 10 thousand years and you shall find the evidence; empires standing tall and sooner or later collapsing, taking all the knowledge with them.

It would be quite a pessimistic view to think that as a whole we have achieved little. It’s quite easy to point out problems or shortcomings, but rather difficult to propose optimistic solutions, and far more difficult to see them through.

As a species, we have far more intellectual capabilities than the past; how and where do we employ it, is a different subject matter. Knowledge can be lost, but our intellectual capabilities always evolve for the better in my opinion.

And please, this is not about individual pockets of isolated examples in my hometown, but involves a global outlook.

[Sapius]

Dave;

S: I believe that ‘mental’ development is a result of “natural selection” too, with “mind” (awareness) being at every level but different in nature, to the depths of say quantum mechanics, however minuscule or unrecognizable that it may be. So please keep that in mind.

D: Sorry Sap, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you out it another way for me?

Well, I did mention that I am mixing philosophy with biology (physicality), and please correct me where I go wrong with science.

In quantum mechanics, I’m told that observing effects the way a particle reacts, and it is suspected that it seems as if the particle is aware of it being observed and reacts accordingly. What can you tell me in that regard?

S: As for natural selection; why should natural selection be limited to ‘physical’ natural selection and thereby “physical’ changes only?

D: In a way it isn't and in a way it is.

It isn't in that phenotypes are not only examples of physical characterisics but examples of behavioural and developmental characteristics too.

It is in that, whilst phenotypes are the qualities that are selected, the genotype is the quality that is inherited.

Yes, we can see it in two ways, but aren’t they both working simultaneously?

S: After all, evolution did prefer to select boosting sentient intelligence instead of battling nature by mutating physical aspects in our case. It preferred to concentrate on ‘mental evolution’ by naturally selecting and boosting the organ that supported logic and reasoning,

D: Yes but, within the scope of natural selection, the evolution of mental qualities is a product of the evolution of physical qualities. They are one in the same thing really, there is no divide, it's just that mental qualities are a subset of physical qualities.

Ah! This I think is the main difference as to how I look at it. I’m actually stretching ‘natural selection’ in a way.

You see, I don’t consider those different qualities as one and the same thing, and surely not as a subset of the other, but say inter-reliant and inter-effecting qualities. I will try to explain.

Surely OUR ‘mental qualities’ evolve along with the evolution of ‘physical qualities’, but THEY cannot be out of nothing. And that physicality does not create “awareness” at some point of “physical” evolution, but is already there in the most rudimentary form. Each of them would necessarily have the most rudimentary form but never zero, otherwise ‘causality’ or the flow of change cannot be. What I’m saying that we may not recognize it as so, but ‘awareness’, as in a quantum particle or even anything deeper than that, has to have a detectable ‘thing-ness’ as well as ‘awareness’, where ‘thing-ness’ (physicality and its evolution), is inter-related to ‘awareness’ that each particular thing already has within, because even the most tiniest of quantum particle can be sub-divided further, and every sub-division is interacting “within”, just like our brains. Only that the brain has billions of neurons working, where as the sub-divided particles act like “neurons” for THAT particular particle.

It is rather difficult to explain because I read things and then forget the correct terminology, otherwise there are number of sub-divisions even beyond the sub-divisions of a particular sub-divided particle part, and new kind of particles are being discovered all the time.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you say but see some of it in a different light, and will respond to it in due course.

[brokenhead]

Can you draw a bigger picture or with a better resolution? I can't see that one. Thanks.

And are you equating higher population with higher learning? The connection does not seem obvious to me.

Sorry - the bigger picture is here (click on the thumb):



When I did the preview, it came out full size. Anyway, Dan doesn't really want us posting pictures. I'm not sure I even know how to do it correctly.

I'm not equating the two, but look at the graph! They are obviously both related to the availability of written knowledge.

The Ten Percent Myth

Thanks for this, DH. I never knew the source of this "fact," yet I have hard it so many times I went along with it. I know I heard it in psychology class at uni - that was my minor. I have even heard it "explained": that humans evolved redundant brain capacity to "compensate" for brain cell loss due to injury and fermented beverage consumption. This article doesn't actually disprove it, but debunks it pretty well and is well worth the read.

[Sapius]

I believe that ‘mental’ development is a result of “natural selection” too, with “mind” (awareness) being at every level but different in nature, to the depths of say quantum mechanics, however minuscule or unrecognizable that it may be. So please keep that in mind.

Sorry Sap, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you out it another way for me?

Sapius, are you trying to say that the soul could possibly retain a memory of sorts from one physical incarnation to another, or are you thinking more along the lines that mental development could change the genetic structure in a way that could be passed on to offspring, or both, or something else?

I would agree with the possibility of either or both.

No, I’m not talking about the former, but the later. “Soul” or “incarnation” is a different subject.

In short, what I’m saying is that ‘psychology’ is as much a contributor as the environmental pressure is, which affects our genetic structure. Our ‘mind set’ as developed during our lifetime, although influenced by inherited genetics and cultural environments, has a strong influence on our genetic structure, no matter how small it may be on an overall evolutionary scale.

For example, I see that certain “mental” pressures such as fear of a predator have affected the physical changes in animals that have developed physical camouflage tactics; I think Dave might correct me here if there is another reason.

Yes we inherit changes, and major changes do not occur in, or can be seen within even a few generations, but it is necessarily each individual gene within a particular individual that mutates to a tiniest degree, and contributes to the gene pool. So, an individual plays as much a part as the whole, for without that tiny change, there couldn’t be the grand one in my opinion.

[Dave Toast]

Right, I think I see what you're saying now. And it's right. Psychology does influence and even bring about new selection pressures, no doubt. For example the phenomenon of Sexual Selection, which often goes against the mechanisms ordinarily involved in strict natural selection, proliferates phenotypes and genotypes that aren't necessarily the fittest for physical environmental pressures.

[Dave Toast]

In quantum mechanics, I’m told that observing effects the way a particle reacts, and it is suspected that it seems as if the particle is aware of it being observed and reacts accordingly. What can you tell me in that regard?

That's a bit of a common misconception really mate.

Measurement does effect quantum systems such that the system is changed irreversibly. But a particle is no more aware of the act of measurement than a football is aware of being kicked.

The 'Consciousness Causes Collapse' hypothesis is generally regarded as pseudoscience, popularized by people seeking to correlate the findings of quantum mechanics with Eastern philosophy.

Strictly, the act of measurement decoheres the superposition of the quantum state such that the wavefunction of the system and the wavefunction of the environment (i.e. apparatus) interfere irretrievably. This is what causes the 'Problem of Measurement' in QM, according to Copenhagen.

Yes, we can see it in two ways, but aren’t they both working simultaneously?

Yes indeed, but it must be understood that the mechanism of selection acts on phenotypes but the mechanism of propagation acts only on genotypes, which are exclusively physical.

You see, I don’t consider those different qualities as one and the same thing, and surely not as a subset of the other, but say inter-reliant and inter-effecting qualities.

What I'm saying is that they are as far as the mechanism of evolution by natural selection is concerned. The mental qualities passed onto the next generation are conveyed just as physically as physical qualities are. As such, mental qualities are a subset of physical qualities.

I will try to explain.

Surely OUR ‘mental qualities’ evolve along with the evolution of ‘physical qualities’, but THEY cannot be out of nothing. And that physicality does not create “awareness” at some point of “physical” evolution, but is already there in the most rudimentary form. Each of them would necessarily have the most rudimentary form but never zero, otherwise ‘causality’ or the flow of change cannot be. What I’m saying that we may not recognize it as so, but ‘awareness’, as in a quantum particle or even anything deeper than that, has to have a detectable ‘thing-ness’ as well as ‘awareness’, where ‘thing-ness’ (physicality and its evolution), is inter-related to ‘awareness’ that each particular thing already has within, because even the most tiniest of quantum particle can be sub-divided further, and every sub-division is interacting “within”, just like our brains. Only that the brain has billions of neurons working, where as the sub-divided particles act like “neurons” for THAT particular particle.

It is rather difficult to explain because I read things and then forget the correct terminology, otherwise there are number of sub-divisions even beyond the sub-divisions of a particular sub-divided particle part, and new kind of particles are being discovered all the time.

Sorry mate, I'm not too sure what you're saying here but it all sounds very Pincho Paxtonish. Is it perhaps based on extrapolation, using the above mistaken POV that 'everything is aware' as evidenced by the 'Consciousness Causes Collapse' common misconception?

[Dave Toast]

Thanks for this, DH. I never knew the source of this "fact," yet I have hard it so many times I went along with it. I know I heard it in psychology class at uni - that was my minor. I have even heard it "explained": that humans evolved redundant brain capacity to "compensate" for brain cell loss due to injury and fermented beverage consumption. This article doesn't actually disprove it, but debunks it pretty well and is well worth the read.

I'm surprised either of you give the contents of this page any credence. Note that the link debunks the view that "We only use ten percent of our brains", or rather it offers a bunch of 'appeals to' arguments against its proponents' 'appeals to' arguments. More accurately, the conception in question is actually that we only use ten percent of our brains' potential - an entirely other proposition. The percentage involved is obviously arguable but the proposition that there is always more potential available is just as obviously unarguable. Learning would be impossible otherwise. I think it's fairly safe to speculate that not one individual in the history of our species has come anywhere near completely maxing out the potential of every single aspect of the mind.

[brokenhead]

I think it's fairly safe to speculate that not one individual in the history of our species has come anywhere near completely maxing out the potential of every single aspect of the mind.

How about the Amazing Kreskin?

I think D.H. is quite right to point out the possibility that this 10% figure we all seem to accept is not immune from scrutiny. As I said, the article does not disprove it - it does not even address the notion that our brains are vastly underused no matter what "percent" we put on it, but since I looked at it, I have been googling and have not found anything to to support it , and not a few that also debunk it.

[Dave Toast]

Yeah I forgot about Kreskin.

[Laird]

Wow, this really blew me away, I want to believe it and damn it - DO believe it! I mean, everyone has heard the golden rule right? still the world is still a very violent place, does this work very well then? Maybe not. Christ, I want it to work, WHO DOESNT? still we remain greedy and love the neighbors lawn and wife and husband above our own, don't we very often.

Does it work? That's the big question and to be honest it's difficult for me to answer. I had a pretty loving upbringing - my parents were at pains to show us kids how much they loved us and they never beat or abused us. So to whatever extent I have achieved a life of maximised love and minimised hatred, it's hard to know how much is due to my own efforts and how much is due to that which my parents bestowed upon me. There is a little test that I'm hoping I'll one day get the chance to perform. That test I hope will come about due to my belief in polyamoury. Basically I believe that any woman that I'm with should be free to be with other men at the same time should she so choose (and I'd hope that she'd grant the same freedom to me). The difficulty of course is this inbuilt territoriality that we as humans feel about our partners - monogamy seems to be a selected-for trait. So the test for me is whether I'll be able to rationalise this feeling of jealousy (a form of hatred) by saying to myself "Alright, I'm feeling jealous of this other lover but in the end, what's the harm, right? I mean, she still loves me, and that's what matters, isn't it?" Now as far as I understand Sue, what she's saying is that this jealousy that I might feel towards my lover's other man would be a necessary consequence of my own love for my lover, and I wouldn't be able to escape it. My contention on the other hand is that going through the process of rationalisation enough times trains one's brain to, if not totally eliminate the emotion, at least minimise the effect that it has on one's mind and behaviour. It's like being maliciously teased. As a kid at school I felt a sort of hatred for the ones who were teasing me and I wanted to beat their heads in. Nowadays I can pretty much rationalise it away as "Well, that bugger's got some issues that he's acting out - there's no point in reacting to it." It still cuts me, I just don't hate as much. I guess my opinion is that part of the process of maturing into an adult is that we learn to deal better with our emotions - we all achieve it to some extent, it's just a matter of how far we're willing to really go.

Maybe it's too difficult to think clearly when having strong mad emotions, seems reasonable. I suppose a huge step would be to learn to not act impulsively, but when some maniac is bashing you kids skull in right in front of you and is about to head for the crib, well who can think about anything other than How to knock his block off asap, right?

Right, I guess the important thing in that situation is to not allow your emotions to lead you into excess. It's one thing to tackle that maniac and to restrain him whilst your partner calls the police, and quite another to bash his skull in unnecessarily in retaliation for what he's done to your kids.

And would such a thought be necessarily faulty in this circumstance? You cant just call all violent ideas even impulsive ones "faulty", right Laird? In some cases time is of essence and impulses may provide the best solution, it can't be ruled out.

Sure, fear and anger in that situation might even provide the necessary strength and energy for you to overcome the violent maniac. There might not be a peaceful option.

Another thought - isn't the most rational approach achieved when no emotion is swaying the mind, suggesting that Sue's idea about losing emotions alltogether points in the same direction as yours?

No, because she wants to eliminate positive emotions as well as negative ones - to, as Elizabeth put it, throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've been to a place of numbness before - a place where I didn't feel any love for my fellow man, where I was completely isolated and uncaring - and it's not nearly as good a place to be as the one where I'm at right now, where on occasion I get a little teary just out of awe at the incredible things that people get up to and out of feeling so much love for the rest of humanity. Now I don't believe that the actual state of numbness that I was in is the same as the state which Sue is advocating, but I'm just making the point that positive emotions, and love in particular (if it can even be described as an emotion), make the world a better place to live in, even if only from one's own subjective perspective.

[divine focus]

There is a little test that I'm hoping I'll one day get the chance to perform. That test I hope will come about due to my belief in polyamoury. Basically I believe that any woman that I'm with should be free to be with other men at the same time should she so choose (and I'd hope that she'd grant the same freedom to me). The difficulty of course is this inbuilt territoriality that we as humans feel about our partners - monogamy seems to be a selected-for trait. So the test for me is whether I'll be able to rationalise this feeling of jealousy (a form of hatred) by saying to myself "Alright, I'm feeling jealous of this other lover but in the end, what's the harm, right? I mean, she still loves me, and that's what matters, isn't it?"

If there is a feeling of jealousy, then there really isn't a belief in polyamory. You may believe you may be polyamorous but not your partner. Whatever the case, the feeling of jealousy comes up because of a belief that your partner should not be with any other man. The point isn't to be changing your beliefs but to be accepting of them and appreciating the differences between your beliefs and your partner's. If you believe you can be polyamorous but don't believe your partner should, you have a choice of finding a new partner who compliments your beliefs or making an exception for your current partner if it is worthwhile.

If you really believe in equal polyamory within your psyche, there will be no feelings of jealousy.