The point of fundamental ignorance? (Wilber)

So is the ability to see into our true nature a trait derived from evolution? I may be mishandling evolutionary theory.

"So is the ability to see into our true nature a trait derived from evolution? I may be mishandling evolutionary theory." -Jake2

That's an interesting question. I don't have a great answer. But, I think evolution has resulted in a human capacity for inquiring into experience. So, even if it wasn't for the purpose of awakening, per se, we somehow ended up with the necessary tools.

Not the most satisfying answer, I imagine.

P.S. the myth that works for me a lot of the time is that natural wakefulness didn't mean to wake up to itself. It was as spontaneous as everything else. I'm not an idealist, so I don't think that some grand intelligence is trying to evolve itself to a situation where it knows itself. I think it's much more mysterious than that; and thus, much more awe inspiring.

Chris, I'm not sure you are understanding what my point was: there is NO point, as far as biological evolution goes, to ANY traits. Traits don't have survival value, + or -. Only in specific contexts do they have these values, and only as long as these contexts last. What almost drives a species to extinction in one context may be its saving grace in another. Culture and our big brains are a great example of this principle!

And the kinds of things which emerge around the corner are fundamentally unpredictable in a profound way: the emergence of carbon dioxide breathing, oxygen exhaling bacteria during the epoch of single-celled life led to an "oxygen holocaust" which killed off nearly all life on earth. Those who survived seem to have done so by joining forces in an unpredictable way, resulting in a new form of single-celled bacteria formed from the combination of co2 breathers and fermenters--- which just happened to have an internal complexity allowing multi-celled organisms to develop.

The odd consequence is that all their descendants (i.e., pretty much every species now living) have the evolutionarily useless trait of producing lactic acid when burning energy, which degrades performance and has no value. (Actually, there are some mutant exceptions apparently. Ever seen that show where Stan Lee finds real people with "super powers"? They had a fellow on there who could run pretty much endlessly without incurring harm to himself or subjective sensations of muscle fatigue (which are a byproduct of lactic acid build up). Sure enough, when they took blood samples it was found that he was a mutant: his metabolism had a fluke whereby this ancient and useless metabolic process had been edited out!)

( BTW: Did you take my post as somehow implying a creative intelligent purpose to evolution? If not I must have mis-read your response!)

Jackson, yes I know what you mean. I take a holistic-systems view of these sorts of things. Any attempt to understand a phenomenon in scientific terms can be helped by bringing in multiple dimensions of interpretation. And when it comes to things like the human brain, whose very existence, structure and function can only be understood in terms of multiple areas of study (like neuroscience, psychology, phenomenology, cultural anthropology, sociology) this is a vital understanding.

I don't think there is any question that the human brain is a complex system which is dependent on non-biological factors like culture and socialization to develop its physical structure. That's the whole point of the brain after all! And not just humans but certainly at least many species of mammals depend on socialization for their brains, experience and behavior to fully mature. Just ask the lion raised by zoo keepers and released into the wild

A human brain not exposed to certain stimuli will not grow into the bio-anatomical structure which we label a neuro-typical brain. This isn't that complex. If biology itself were sufficient to produce what we call a normal brain, then it wouldn't be necessary to expose a brain to certain experiences in order for it to assume the mature structure that is a biological possibility, but not actualized without these experiences.

And again, (all) traits in current organisms aren't here because they have survival value, or even because they *had* survival value. What you seem to be pointing out is the, reasonable I think, point that over very long periods of time traits which persist will, in general, have had either survival + value or a lack of survival - value.

If I understand Jake correctly, I think he's saying that although there is a physical, biological structure to the brain, it doesn't develop into a functioning human brain as we know it unless the organism possessing the brain interacts with an environment in a certain way. Non-material things like language changes the material of the brain, in ways that are different than say, nutrition.



Whether or not language is "non-biological" is tricky; I can't say I would endorse that view. However, not all aspects of language are "material," even if it depends on material (and that's a big "if")... I could be missing something, though. And, I'm learning from this dialog

A human brain not exposed to certain stimuli will not grow into the bio-anatomical structure which we label a neuro-typical brain. This isn't that complex. If biology itself were sufficient to produce what we call a normal brain, then it wouldn't be necessary to expose a brain to certain experiences in order for it to assume the mature structure that is a biological possibility, but not actualized without these experiences.

-jake

Yes, that makes sense to me. The key to this, I think, is in the concept of "what we call a normal [human] brain."

Yes Jackson

Also, I agree that not all human genetic traits were necessarily selected based on survival value. This is demonstrated by the "spandrel"...

"In evolutionary biology, a Spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

Some traits just piggyback to other selected traits. Therefore, it can be difficult to determine whether or not a particular trait really does have evolutionary value. It's a pretty big confound, but I'm pretty sure it's a well known concept that is probably factored in to a lot of the current research... maybe that's a generous assumption. I don't know.

Oh and it might be worth saying since since this is a text based format and these things need to be stated explicitly sometimes, especially in such a back and forth:

a) I'm learning things too

b) hopefully you all can read my words with a patient, open, interested, but persistent tone. I don't want that persistence to be misconstrued as anything else than what it is: an attempt to communicate

Chris, I'm glad we're all understanding each other better, even if that means we disagree!

From where I stand currently, the fact that human language as we know it is enabled by human biology (which comes first), is not grounds to asserting with certainty that language is itself biological material.

There are several options available:

1. Language could be material

2. Language could be an emergent property of material

3. Language could be permitted by material

4. Language could be transmitted via material

The first two options are the preferred views of those from the materialist paradigm. But, as far as I know, we don't have a firm empirical basis to support ANY of these options with any degree of certainty. This means that we are responsible for the option we choose, and we have to own up to the fact that it's no more than an informed assumption at this point.

All assumptions have their limits, and vary in their explanatory power. The truth, though, is that we really don't know.

Chris, maybe that's the case. It would be fun to sit around a fire with all of you guys and hash this stuff out. I'm sure we'd get a lot further, and much more quickly.

"This is what science tell us, and it;s open to finding a non-material entity, but how would that thing be detectable?" - Chris



Is it really open to finding a non-material entity, if such a thing can not be accomodated in its methodology? Usually that's called pseudo-science and is discarded as non-testable.



This assumes that the abilities of measurement devices remain the same.

"We have no evidence to support anything but material causes. Here I mean material to be any physical process (physical objects, chemicals, radio signals, light waves, microwaves, atoms, molecules, quarks, and so on), because to change a material thing requires a material cause. There is no way around that except to believe in magic, a God or some super-entity. This is not a moral or ethical dilemma. It's a fact.

This is what science tell us, and it;s open to finding a non-material entity, but how would that thing be detectable?" -Chris



OK, it's my turn to be a giant pain in the ass (haha)...



As far as I know, there are a number of empirical findings within the realm of quantum mechanics that radically disobey the rule that "to change a material thing requires a material cause." I'm no expert in this stuff, but I know the QM findings ruffle the feathers of many physicists who continue to insist on a pre-QM understanding of things.



I guess what I'm curious about - and therefore, open to exploring - is whether or not material must be the basic building block of the cosmos. It's not about physical and metaphysical; perhaps these old categories are defunct.



This is not my area of expertise, though.