5 ms·

Call it anyway you want, lizard brain, flyers (Castaneda), Yaldabaoth (agnostics), this force that pushes evolution on earth at great speed through predatorial

by givan 9y ago

Call it anyway you want, lizard brain, flyers (Castaneda), Yaldabaoth (agnostics), this force that pushes evolution on earth at great speed through predatorial behavior like competition and flight or fight. We humans are the most intelligent species and still can't overcome it, as a civilization whatever political system or religion we tried no matter how hard we try we can't seem to overcome it, we still have wars and violence. When few succeed to inspire people to overcome it and fight without violence like Mahatma Gandhi did they inspire humanity and are called saints by their nation. When an individual can control his own feelings to such an extent that violence or anger feelings can no longer touch him we call him enlightened. Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it.

david-gpu 9y ago
Evidence, please. Vague speculation doesn't belong here IMO.
- mod 9y ago
  Exactly what are you asking for evidence of?
  - __jal 9y ago
    The OP appears to conflate selective pressures with unconscious human decision-making. At least, that's what I took away from it. That seems confused to me, but I can't speak for anyone else in the thread.
agitator 9y ago
Well, if you look at the human brain, it's just a larger cortex on top of the primitive brain stem. So I think, simply looking at our brain architecture, we are will always be impacted by the emotional low level impulses that were the main drivers of behaviors of our ancestors.
- JackFr 9y ago
  That's just what your brain wants you to think.
- asdfasdf32r3 9y ago
  Exactly this, although it's more a useful mental model / philosophy than a concrete nullifiable bit of science IMO. In the meditation style I prefer, it's useful to think of the subconscious/primitive brain as an elephant that is somewhat under control of the driver (the modern brain).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
felipeko 9y ago
I call it scarcity of resources. You won't see wars and what not when you have humanity with abundance of resources.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  a) The problem is more distribution more than abundance. b) I bet that we'll have wars even if everyone has all they need. I'd like to be wrong.
  - felipeko 9y ago
    a) World gdp per capita is less than $18.000, hardly what i would call abundance. We are still a few good decades away from abundance. b) I bet that rich countries, where people have all they need, will not provoke wars or engage on unprovoked wars (unless for humanitarian reasons).
    - robotresearcher 9y ago
      The richest country in the world has been at war overseas almost constantly since the end of WWII.
      - felipeko 9y ago
        And it went to war for the following reasons: a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe) b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
scribu 9y ago
> Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say. It seems like you're attributing some mysterious intentionality to our violent impulses, as if there's some benevolent entity somewhere in there. It sounds like you're talking about God.
Bakary 9y ago
First, I'm not sure how we can anthropomorphize an evolutionary force like that. Second, evolutionary forces have made us value nonviolence in the first place. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have any notion of the reason or means to overcome what we see as a never-ending cycle. If we are able to even conceive of violence as something negative then it means we are already able to "overcome" it to some extent, but then we find that the question itself is circular. Essentially, to be able to think that the world is shitty you already need a framework in place where members of your species are influenced by a widespread desire to make it less shitty according to criteria determined by their biological needs.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  I don't know who thinks that humans value nonviolence but they clearly don't read the news. Species act to adapt to their environment and provide for their needs. Nature necessitates violence for adaptation and survival. In species with no natural predators, an abundance of natural resources, and no problems with genetic propagation, violence might not be necessary for survival. But in many species, even ones with no natural predators (or very little risk of predation), they may commit violence upon themselves, usually to enforce a social order, or eventually pass on their own genetic material. Or they may commit violence for fun, I believe as a sort of practice for real-life predation. And violence isn't negative. You're ascribing with morality (a human construct) or are diminishing (it's actually constructive) a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself.
  - Bakary 9y ago
    >You're ascribing with morality (a human construct) or are diminishing (it's actually constructive) a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. I'm not sure what you thought I wrote but it's the opposite of what I outlined. My whole argument is indeed that morals are indeed a human construct, so that if someone laments the amount of violence, they should realize that to be able to make such a complaint you already need to have arrived to a point where avoiding violence has granted you evolutionary advantages and thus been selected for to some extent, hence making the question a closed loop. Otherwise, the question would not even be conceivable to our minds. >I don't know who thinks that humans value nonviolence but they clearly don't read the news. Just because we engage in violence very frequently doesn't mean it is not valued. There are many different evolutionary pressures coexisting together. At the largest end of the scale, having a less violent society is very much an evolutionary advantage, otherwise we would not have an ingrained sense of fairness, the notion of morality, or as you mentioned the desire to inflict normative violence if that standard of fairness is violated by another individual. These emotions and constructs exist because they bring an advantage, and they do ironically bring on a state of lesser violence through the applied threat of violence. >a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself. Violence doesn't have a special status in the sense that it will be productive in any environment. Just like any other trait, if the conditions change to a sufficient extent, it will become obsolete. It's only positive due to the way things are currently working. We're by definition part of nature so we can't escape it, but that doesn't mean nature will necessarily remain the way it has been in the past.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
Minor pedantic point: it's Gnostics (i.e. the exact opposite of agnostics): http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

by givan 9y ago

david-gpu 9y ago

Evidence, please. Vague speculation doesn't belong here IMO.

mod 9y ago
Exactly what are you asking for evidence of?
- __jal 9y ago
  The OP appears to conflate selective pressures with unconscious human decision-making. At least, that's what I took away from it. That seems confused to me, but I can't speak for anyone else in the thread.

agitator 9y ago

Well, if you look at the human brain, it's just a larger cortex on top of the primitive brain stem. So I think, simply looking at our brain architecture, we are will always be impacted by the emotional low level impulses that were the main drivers of behaviors of our ancestors.

JackFr 9y ago
That's just what your brain wants you to think.
asdfasdf32r3 9y ago
Exactly this, although it's more a useful mental model / philosophy than a concrete nullifiable bit of science IMO. In the meditation style I prefer, it's useful to think of the subconscious/primitive brain as an elephant that is somewhat under control of the driver (the modern brain).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

felipeko 9y ago

I call it scarcity of resources. You won't see wars and what not when you have humanity with abundance of resources.

robotresearcher 9y ago
a) The problem is more distribution more than abundance. b) I bet that we'll have wars even if everyone has all they need. I'd like to be wrong.
- felipeko 9y ago
  a) World gdp per capita is less than $18.000, hardly what i would call abundance. We are still a few good decades away from abundance. b) I bet that rich countries, where people have all they need, will not provoke wars or engage on unprovoked wars (unless for humanitarian reasons).
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    The richest country in the world has been at war overseas almost constantly since the end of WWII.
    - felipeko 9y ago
      And it went to war for the following reasons: a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe) b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

scribu 9y ago

> Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say. It seems like you're attributing some mysterious intentionality to our violent impulses, as if there's some benevolent entity somewhere in there. It sounds like you're talking about God.

Bakary 9y ago

First, I'm not sure how we can anthropomorphize an evolutionary force like that. Second, evolutionary forces have made us value nonviolence in the first place. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have any notion of the reason or means to overcome what we see as a never-ending cycle. If we are able to even conceive of violence as something negative then it means we are already able to "overcome" it to some extent, but then we find that the question itself is circular. Essentially, to be able to think that the world is shitty you already need a framework in place where members of your species are influenced by a widespread desire to make it less shitty according to criteria determined by their biological needs.

peterwwillis 9y ago
I don't know who thinks that humans value nonviolence but they clearly don't read the news. Species act to adapt to their environment and provide for their needs. Nature necessitates violence for adaptation and survival. In species with no natural predators, an abundance of natural resources, and no problems with genetic propagation, violence might not be necessary for survival. But in many species, even ones with no natural predators (or very little risk of predation), they may commit violence upon themselves, usually to enforce a social order, or eventually pass on their own genetic material. Or they may commit violence for fun, I believe as a sort of practice for real-life predation. And violence isn't negative. You're ascribing with morality (a human construct) or are diminishing (it's actually constructive) a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself.
- Bakary 9y ago
  >You're ascribing with morality (a human construct) or are diminishing (it's actually constructive) a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. I'm not sure what you thought I wrote but it's the opposite of what I outlined. My whole argument is indeed that morals are indeed a human construct, so that if someone laments the amount of violence, they should realize that to be able to make such a complaint you already need to have arrived to a point where avoiding violence has granted you evolutionary advantages and thus been selected for to some extent, hence making the question a closed loop. Otherwise, the question would not even be conceivable to our minds. >I don't know who thinks that humans value nonviolence but they clearly don't read the news. Just because we engage in violence very frequently doesn't mean it is not valued. There are many different evolutionary pressures coexisting together. At the largest end of the scale, having a less violent society is very much an evolutionary advantage, otherwise we would not have an ingrained sense of fairness, the notion of morality, or as you mentioned the desire to inflict normative violence if that standard of fairness is violated by another individual. These emotions and constructs exist because they bring an advantage, and they do ironically bring on a state of lesser violence through the applied threat of violence. >a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself. Violence doesn't have a special status in the sense that it will be productive in any environment. Just like any other trait, if the conditions change to a sufficient extent, it will become obsolete. It's only positive due to the way things are currently working. We're by definition part of nature so we can't escape it, but that doesn't mean nature will necessarily remain the way it has been in the past.

DonaldFisk 9y ago

Minor pedantic point: it's Gnostics (i.e. the exact opposite of agnostics): http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm