|
Post by PeterB on Oct 13, 2005 1:57:32 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 13, 2005 5:13:18 GMT -4
Interesting, although I'm not sure we'll ever have enough information for more than "just so" stories.
I'd say it's tied in with the evolution of intelligence: our ecological niche is based on having the ability to respond flexibly and adaptively to circumstances. Not being confronted with life-threatening intellectual challenges every day, we end up with spare capacity to wonder what it's all about...
...and, for most of our history, absolutely bugger all to go on; with few constraints to shape our thinking in useful directions.
Evolutionarily speaking, religion can be said to have its own uses: for a social species, a means of shaping behaviour in constructive ways would aid survival, and most human societies appear to have settled on some form of faith to that end.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 13, 2005 9:21:13 GMT -4
Almost on topic, this book gives an eminently readable evolutionary take on the origins of co-operation and altruism.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 13, 2005 21:36:20 GMT -4
Michael Shermer, a Skeptic, has written a book about the origins of religion. Essentially he thought it was a means of enforcing moral behaviour in early societies, coupled with our natural ability to pick liars. Therefore, it was safer for people to behave morally and remain part of the group, than risk faking it, being caught and expelled from the group.
I'm not sure I'm convinced, as it explains only the power of organised religion in urban societies. But nomadic societies have just as much religion, which suggests its origins lie much further back in our past. It wouldn't surprise me if it predates our humanity.
I also wonder about the power that schizophrenic people might have wielded in in the past (the story of Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac seems to fit that theory), and I wonder if perhaps the further back you go into our past, the more prevalent it was.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 14, 2005 18:19:54 GMT -4
To my thinking, an evolutionary benefit of religion throughout human history has been to help people endure through difficult time when the future seemed bleak. Religion provides a view of life that the future will be better because God or the gods were able to intervene on one’s behalf and change one’s fortune. The belief that a better life might be just over the horizon or an eternal reward awaits the suffering will encourage some to persevere and reproduce even in the most dire circumstances. This attitude is very helpful in the relatively poor outlook that many people have faced for most of human existence.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 15, 2005 3:54:39 GMT -4
Well - there is some interest. Thx for the replies. I should have really not taken a giant leap into spiritual evolution, as I meant it not as how religions originated, but rather how humans could have possibly "evolved" into a species that exists in ways beyond the physical realm - we think in abstract, we invent, we dream, we love, we hate, some of us have premonitions of some type -maybe such as I've had (hopefully not, as two of them were quite unpleasant when they unfolded), or various experiences from some of those here may have had in the past....We write books, create music, art, etc.
I'm interested in trying to assess a plausible theory of evolution in regards to very ethereal concepts. . That is, I'm trying to tie in evolution with the development of human psyche, intelligence, and non-physical phenomena (beyond our currently measurable, physical spectrum).
To avoid being too far reaching in the topic, I would like to start with concepts of evolution which consider the development of higher intelligence and senses of emotion, from the primitive (or lower primate) mind to the human mind.
What would spur, in evolutionary theory, a transition of a species from primitive and purely instinct based into a sentient species, with well developed emotions and abilites to think in highly logical terms, and also in abstract, or artistic terms?
I agree, these things are not likely ever measurable or possible to analyse to any degree. But it does make me wonder..
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 17, 2005 2:09:41 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
Oops. My mistake, and in fact I made a mistake in quoting earlier. Shermer’s book was about the evolution of morality, not religion, and morality is something which all human societies have a concept of.
Careful here. What your describing may pre-date humanity.
Chimps do too, I think you’ll find.
Chimps, gorillas and crows have all been shown to be able to develop tools.
I’m pretty sure dogs dream, based on people’s descriptions of how they sometimes behave in their sleep. I dare say it would be easy to find whether there are records of REM sleep in non-humans.
As do most mammals and birds, and probably a lot of other animals.
I know that elephants do art. And lots of animals sing, and use harmonic relationships in their calls, so I think you could almost say music predates humans. I agree that only humans write books, but literacy is a fairly recent development, and we were certainly human before it.
Well, based on what I wrote above, you might want to reconsider the basis of your theories. Given that many of the concepts you describe actually predate humanity, the difference between humans and animals is a case of our ancestors developing pre-existing traits to a massive extent. It’s not as though what makes us humans is something entirely absent in other animals.
Chimps have a very basic concept of art, and recognise themselves in the mirror. Monkeys have been shown to behave in such a way as to show they’re sentient and moral, and thus don’t behave based solely on instinct.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 17, 2005 14:16:23 GMT -4
You have to consider what you mean by spirituality, religion, and organized religion.
Spirituality and religion differ generally by the degree of structure in the belief. One can, for example, believe in some higher intelligence or will without necessarily characterizing it or subscribing to a religion. Spirituality may also simply refer to highly-complex things for which science hasn't yet found a name or a chain of cause and effect: "That's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe has that." Spirituality can be simply an acknowledgement that things are more than the sum of their observable parts. From an evolutionary standpoint this can simply be a vestige of what must have confronted humanity as it first attained rationality: the first step is knowing that is is possible for things to have an explanation and don't simply exist, and the second step is realizing that there is much out there that you don't understand.
A religion generally has certain specific beliefs, or at best some specific domain in which beliefs are contemplated. For example, Christianity considers Jesus to be a figure different from and better than normal humans in ways unattainable by them. Wicca, for example, considers variously one, two, or many deities and evolves a moral code based on personal responsibility (as opposed to dictated norms) and the notion that what goes around comes around. These may not seem "specific" beliefs, but I believe they are when you consider the vast field of all possible beliefs.
That definition also includes science as we know practice it. Science doesn't specify belief, but rather the manner in which beliefs are sought, tested, and challenged. If you want specifically to contrast religion from science, you have to look at the sources of possible belief. Science limits observation to what can be observed or detected objectively and rigorously, and limits belief to what can be inferred from those observations through self-evident relationships. Religion allows subjective experience and beliefs.
Organized religion is primarily a political pursuit -- not "political" in the sense of government, but rather the notions of policy and dynamics among groups that share beliefs. That has more to do with who "belongs" and who doesn't "belong". So I believe organized religion serves a more sociological purpose than a spiritual one. People simply feel more comfortable associating with others who share their core beliefs and values. And some people feel comfortable specifically dissociating with people whom they fear or distrust for whatever reason. The urge to associate and conform is, I believe, a widespread trait in many higher organisms. I've just heard a few things regarding dog training that speak to the canine pack instincts -- that dogs feel an urge to conform and to have rules imposed on them by a higher authority. It may seem like a very long stretch from a canine pack instinct to the Sunday services at St. Paul's, and from an alpha dog to God, but I think the line is there.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 17, 2005 21:58:59 GMT -4
I meant it not as how religions originated, but rather how humans could have possibly "evolved" into a species that exists in ways beyond the physical realm - we think in abstract, we invent, we dream, we love, we hate...
Because man is not a machine, we don't have to relegate him to being a ghost in the machine.
We may not be able to explain exactly how Edison came to invent the lightbulb, but it doesn't follow from our inability that there then must have been a distinct "spirit" inside Edison that did the inventing. It is very natural for us, when confronted by a complex phenomenon that we cannot explain, to assume that there must be something distinct "behind the scenes" as a driving force.
If you saw a crane repeatedly picking up objects and moving them to a truck, you would fully expect to find a person in the crane's cab operating the controls. In your experience, cranes don't operate purposefully on their own. They need people to drive them.
You have to avoid the temptation, however, when confronted by a person acting purposefully--including inventing and abstract thinking--in concluding that there must be some sort of driving force operating the person, such as a spirit. You won't be able to explain how the person does what he does because no such explanation is readily evident, but that is no reason to deny that it is the person who is doing the acting.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 19, 2005 2:34:58 GMT -4
You have to avoid the temptation, however, when confronted by a person acting purposefully--including inventing and abstract thinking--in concluding that there must be some sort of driving force operating the person, such as a spirit. You won't be able to explain how the person does what he does because no such explanation is readily evident, but that is no reason to deny that it is the person who is doing the acting.
No, I'm not trying to imply a "higher power" is behind our thoughts, actions, behaviors, creations, etc. In fact, I see each person as the orginator of his or her own such processes or thoughts. It's the development of the species to higher levels of existence that I'm interested in understanding, or at least contemplating. That development may or may not be explained through evolutionary theories or a synthesis of evolution theory with other phenomena - and if it can be, then what mechanisms would or could be involved.
Or, do we need to consider that evolution theory is limited to the interaction of species with the physical world? That non-physical development and progress over several generations do not fit in to such a theory. And, could a better grasp of knowledge in that regard also lead us to come around full circle, so as to consider these new-found theories or evidentiary sources are also a better explanation for our development than evolution theories?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 19, 2005 3:07:00 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
Firstly, remember that non-human animals display many of the characteristics I think you're interested in. They love, hate, lie, use tools, communicate and backstab. Therefore, what you need to explore is why these characteristics developed to such a high extent in humans.
Secondly, consider that the human brain grew at the fastest rate back in the days of the rise of Homo erectus. The time when our supposedly modern human concepts came to life would have been around the time that the first Homos appeared.
I'd like to recommend Steve Oppenheimer's "Out of Eden." The book examines the spread of modern humans across the Earth, but also spends a couple of chapters looking at the development of humans up to the appearance of Homo sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 19, 2005 3:21:33 GMT -4
A major difficulty in trying to make progress in this area is summed up in Al Johnston's sig : "If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple we couldn't".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 19, 2005 21:02:28 GMT -4
No, I'm not trying to imply a "higher power" is behind our thoughts,...
...That non-physical development and progress over several generations do not fit in to such a theory.
What do you mean by "abstract thinking", to pick one, and how is this "spiritual" or "ethereal"? Or, do we need to consider that evolution theory is limited to the interaction of species with the physical world?
The purpose of a scientific theory, as with any explanation, is to describe what you don't know in terms of what you do know. And what you do know is the world that you live, breathe, and stub your toes in. Any such theory will necessarily be stated in terms of the physical.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 19, 2005 22:18:48 GMT -4
What do you mean by "abstract thinking", to pick one, and how is this "spiritual" or "ethereal"?
Abstract "things" are sometimes defined as "ethereal" - those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, like the color red. Is the number 3 real? Are hate or happiness real? Are their effects real? Or are they just "abstract ideas" created by humans?
As for the word "spiritual", there are several defintions, some of which relate to religion. But for my purposes, I am using the terms "spiritual" or "spirituality" as defined below. .. 1. Consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal; as, a spiritual substance or being.
2. Of or pertaining to the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind; mental; intellectual.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 19, 2005 23:07:52 GMT -4
Turbonium
Don't try to tie yourself into too many knots thinking about some of these concepts. I wonder whether you might be over-analysing things.
Yes, the number 3 doesn't have a physical existence, but some things can be numbered as three, such as the three cups of coffee on the table. But it's not just humans who have a knowledge of three things as opposed to two or four.
I remember reading the story about a German nobleman who tried to catch a crow nesting in a tower in his castle. The nobleman sent a man up the tower to wait, but the bird saw him enter the tower and stayed away. So the nobleman sent two men up the tower, and had one climb back down. But the crow recognised that fewer people had climbed down than climbed up, and stayed away. So the nobleman sent three men up...
If I remember correctly, the crow lost count around seven or eight.
The point I keep trying to make is that I think you're trying to find some unique difference between humans and other animals in the way they think, or the things they can conceptualise. However, in reality the difference appears to be simply one of degree - there are virtually no mental skills humans have which are totally lacking in animals.
You're asking what happened and as a result, I suspect you're looking to explain something which doesn't need to be explained. I think scientists know this reasonably well, but they're still trying to explain why, and why now and not earlier, to other species.
|
|