7 ms·

If one thinks of evolution not in terms of human beings as the evolving unit but in terms of groups of humans, depression - caused by a feeling of inadequacy an

by arijo 17y ago

If one thinks of evolution not in terms of human beings as the evolving unit but in terms of groups of humans, depression - caused by a feeling of inadequacy and causing isolation and eventual death of the depressed person - might be explained by an higher likelihood of group survival chances and gene pool preservation.

tokenadult 17y ago
Explanation, please, with more detail? I've just been reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True, and that doesn't sound like a mechanism of natural selection I've seen proposed in any writing by a professional evolutionary scientist. But maybe I'll have a better understanding of what you are saying if you show more steps of your reasoning.
- arijo 17y ago
  It's not a common perspective on evolution, to my knowledge. That's why I submitted it to the discussion by brighter minds than my own. Don't you think the group as the last in a succession of units of evolution (gene, cell, multi-cellular organism, vertebrate, primate, group of primates?) is a plausible - even if not much debated yet - conjecture? Research has shown the existence of mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron) in our brain - which I interpret as humans being hardwired to function as a group. It could explain depression, for example.
  - lucifer 17y ago
    The higher order unit (e.g. Bee Hive) for the humans is very compelling. But all n-th level units exhibit a pattern that is not immediately evident for the human group unit. 1 - Body. Every unit has a distinct physically cohesive component, that can symbolically be represented as a Circle. 2 - Nucleus. Every body has a distinct Center. (Queen Bee in the Hive.) 3 - Metabolic Network. Every unit is organized through the means of a metabolic network. (Bees use chemical signals.) So if there is a 'higher' human, we need to identify these characteristic features. Of course, the cyber utopians would (plausibly) propose that it is machine mediation that will (finally) give rise to the higher human unit. [edit/add: And Mystics, rejecting the black box model of Mind, would argue that meditation and group formation (e.g. Sufis and the Dance) that activates the higher man.]
    - arijo 17y ago
      Interesting ... Maybe evolution doesn't follow a pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
      - lucifer 17y ago
        Evolution is subservient to mathematics that governs physics. It merely searches the phenotype space, but that space is structured and constrained. (Number governs all.)
        alextp 17y ago
        First, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express. With a bit of mental work mathematics can represent anything. It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns (such as "center" as you mentioned). This sounds like religious analogy, not scientific thinking.
        lucifer 17y ago
        "First, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express." Mathematics is entirely independent of physics and is not a mere descriptive language. The second statement sounds "religious"; perhaps you can demonstrate a case in point? "It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns." There was no mention of "simple" in the comment to which you have replied. Simply a statement of the fact that no amount of evolutionary development can give rise to the impossible.
runningdogx 17y ago
I think a group of humans can certainly be regarded as an organism in its own right. I think far too few people take this "new-age" concept of meta- or super-organisms seriously. However, evolution cannot work in the same way on such meta-organisms. Intelligence and the emergent phenomena it creates (strategic planning, willful competition) will logically overshadow almost everything else in determining group survival for higher organisms. I suppose one could make a different but related argument that because certain mood disorders seem to be linked to creativity and intelligence, and because those things confer group advantage (in developing competitive strategy), depression might indirectly provide group advantage.
- arijo 17y ago
  "I suppose one could make a different but related argument that because certain mood disorders seem to be linked to creativity and intelligence, and because those things confer group advantage (in developing competitive strategy), depression might indirectly provide group advantage." That's a great counter-argument. But could I refute it as a tautology: mood disorders->intelligence->group advantage->mood disorders (by genetic inheritance of successful - though mood disordered - group members?

by arijo 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

Explanation, please, with more detail? I've just been reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True, and that doesn't sound like a mechanism of natural selection I've seen proposed in any writing by a professional evolutionary scientist. But maybe I'll have a better understanding of what you are saying if you show more steps of your reasoning.

arijo 17y ago
It's not a common perspective on evolution, to my knowledge. That's why I submitted it to the discussion by brighter minds than my own. Don't you think the group as the last in a succession of units of evolution (gene, cell, multi-cellular organism, vertebrate, primate, group of primates?) is a plausible - even if not much debated yet - conjecture? Research has shown the existence of mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron) in our brain - which I interpret as humans being hardwired to function as a group. It could explain depression, for example.
- lucifer 17y ago
  The higher order unit (e.g. Bee Hive) for the humans is very compelling. But all n-th level units exhibit a pattern that is not immediately evident for the human group unit. 1 - Body. Every unit has a distinct physically cohesive component, that can symbolically be represented as a Circle. 2 - Nucleus. Every body has a distinct Center. (Queen Bee in the Hive.) 3 - Metabolic Network. Every unit is organized through the means of a metabolic network. (Bees use chemical signals.) So if there is a 'higher' human, we need to identify these characteristic features. Of course, the cyber utopians would (plausibly) propose that it is machine mediation that will (finally) give rise to the higher human unit. [edit/add: And Mystics, rejecting the black box model of Mind, would argue that meditation and group formation (e.g. Sufis and the Dance) that activates the higher man.]
  - arijo 17y ago
    Interesting ... Maybe evolution doesn't follow a pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
    - lucifer 17y ago
      Evolution is subservient to mathematics that governs physics. It merely searches the phenotype space, but that space is structured and constrained. (Number governs all.)
      - alextp 17y ago
        First, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express. With a bit of mental work mathematics can represent anything. It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns (such as "center" as you mentioned). This sounds like religious analogy, not scientific thinking.
        lucifer 17y ago
        "First, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express." Mathematics is entirely independent of physics and is not a mere descriptive language. The second statement sounds "religious"; perhaps you can demonstrate a case in point? "It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns." There was no mention of "simple" in the comment to which you have replied. Simply a statement of the fact that no amount of evolutionary development can give rise to the impossible.

runningdogx 17y ago

I think a group of humans can certainly be regarded as an organism in its own right. I think far too few people take this "new-age" concept of meta- or super-organisms seriously. However, evolution cannot work in the same way on such meta-organisms. Intelligence and the emergent phenomena it creates (strategic planning, willful competition) will logically overshadow almost everything else in determining group survival for higher organisms. I suppose one could make a different but related argument that because certain mood disorders seem to be linked to creativity and intelligence, and because those things confer group advantage (in developing competitive strategy), depression might indirectly provide group advantage.

arijo 17y ago
"I suppose one could make a different but related argument that because certain mood disorders seem to be linked to creativity and intelligence, and because those things confer group advantage (in developing competitive strategy), depression might indirectly provide group advantage." That's a great counter-argument. But could I refute it as a tautology: mood disorders->intelligence->group advantage->mood disorders (by genetic inheritance of successful - though mood disordered - group members?