Arthur’s answer to “What mystery in your own life could be a plot for a book?” > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
Do you think it would reduce humanity to the basic survival drive, where the reason for existence becomes existence itself and the concepts of 'nice' or 'nasty' have no meaning beyond simple motivations to extend one's own advantage? I think that people gravitate to belief systems as a way of making sense of the world and perhaps gaining the illusion of control or predictability in their lives.
Agreed. But here's another quandary - are we the only species consumed with a compulsion to insure our survival as a species? If so, where did that come from? (It doesn't appear that any other species has looked ahead to what may come in order to keep itself in existence).
That's a good question. Is the difference between humans and other species the capacity for conceptual abstraction? Certainly, other species exhibit a compulsion for survival. Whales communicated with each other to develop strategies to escape whaling ships in the 19th century by diving or swimming upwind. Bears eat more food ahead of winter to make it through the hibernation period. Honeybees swarm around hornets to roast them alive at the expense of their own lives. Would that count as looking ahead to ensure survival? Probably not in the same self-aware kind of way that humans do, nor with quite the same conceptual complexity. Perhaps blocking the gene that causes people to ponder the reason for our existence (if there is such a gene) would reduce remove that capacity for abstraction and bring humans to level of instinctive survival instead.
Yup ... I think humans are the only ones that make an effort to think about the long-term future in terms of species survival. DNA seems designed to insure a continued existence. The additional worry for future survival seems an odd departure from the evolutionary survival pressure we are assumed to have weathered. It's almost like humans came to be in some another way, with an eye toward a different level of persistence.
Or maybe abstract conception is the next step in evolution? Perhaps not even the last one. One of the patterns that interests me is that human society appears to have evolved into the equivalent of a multi-cellular organism: from single individuals and small groups into complex social structures where an individual's function is highly specialised and a single person is unlikely to survive on their own. We've supplemented individual brain functions to create a collective repository of knowledge and communication in data centres and the internet. Whether this constitutes an organisation better suited for survival remains to be seen, but that is my hope too.
Evolution dependent on electronic devices sounds a bit iffy. As of now, teens are altering their brain chemistry to depend on communication on such devices. I don't see that as a plus, rather it could signal the end of our species.
I used to think so too, until I read about Socrates criticising the notion of books and writing because it would alter the human mind and reduce the capacity for memory and discussion. It got me thinking about the fact that both books and smartphones are examples of communication technology. Technology shapes us as much as we shape it. It has always been so and we cannot really separate human intellect from its manifestation in technological advances. It's what gives us the evolutionary advantage over other species and allows us to survive in different environments. The clothes that keep us warm in different climates, the agricultural advances that allow en masse production of food, networks and satellites that allow us to have this conversation and exchange knowledge - this is the intermediary mechanism by which the advantage of the human intellect manifests.
Books and writing are fine - they are not used enough or by young people to alter brain chemistry and structure. The changes in structure and biochemistry have been confirmed by scientists studying the morphology of preteen/teen brains. These changes are permanent, because they are made in a developing brain. It is thought that these changes are the outcome of the brain accommodating itself to the use of an external device for analytical thinking and communication. Verbal/social skills, analytical thinking, and memory are affected. We will evolve into a species dependent on an electronic extension of our minds. When the electricity is turned off, so will we be.
I don't dispute the findings of changes in the human brain from interaction with different types of technology. I've read an interesting article recently about the way human mind changes after reading a novel too. (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.108...)
I don't necessarily agree that it is evidence of de-evolution though, only of the amazing plasticity and adaptability of the human brain.
I think the danger lies not in any particular format of communication, but in loss of critical thinking skills, capacity for logic, and ability to assess the quality of information sources - something that should be taught to all people regardless of which technology they choose to use.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Khira
(new)
May 14, 2021 07:58PM
Do you think it would reduce humanity to the basic survival drive, where the reason for existence becomes existence itself and the concepts of 'nice' or 'nasty' have no meaning beyond simple motivations to extend one's own advantage? I think that people gravitate to belief systems as a way of making sense of the world and perhaps gaining the illusion of control or predictability in their lives.
reply
|
flag
Agreed. But here's another quandary - are we the only species consumed with a compulsion to insure our survival as a species? If so, where did that come from? (It doesn't appear that any other species has looked ahead to what may come in order to keep itself in existence).
That's a good question. Is the difference between humans and other species the capacity for conceptual abstraction? Certainly, other species exhibit a compulsion for survival. Whales communicated with each other to develop strategies to escape whaling ships in the 19th century by diving or swimming upwind. Bears eat more food ahead of winter to make it through the hibernation period. Honeybees swarm around hornets to roast them alive at the expense of their own lives. Would that count as looking ahead to ensure survival? Probably not in the same self-aware kind of way that humans do, nor with quite the same conceptual complexity. Perhaps blocking the gene that causes people to ponder the reason for our existence (if there is such a gene) would reduce remove that capacity for abstraction and bring humans to level of instinctive survival instead.
Yup ... I think humans are the only ones that make an effort to think about the long-term future in terms of species survival. DNA seems designed to insure a continued existence. The additional worry for future survival seems an odd departure from the evolutionary survival pressure we are assumed to have weathered. It's almost like humans came to be in some another way, with an eye toward a different level of persistence.
Or maybe abstract conception is the next step in evolution? Perhaps not even the last one. One of the patterns that interests me is that human society appears to have evolved into the equivalent of a multi-cellular organism: from single individuals and small groups into complex social structures where an individual's function is highly specialised and a single person is unlikely to survive on their own. We've supplemented individual brain functions to create a collective repository of knowledge and communication in data centres and the internet. Whether this constitutes an organisation better suited for survival remains to be seen, but that is my hope too.
Evolution dependent on electronic devices sounds a bit iffy. As of now, teens are altering their brain chemistry to depend on communication on such devices. I don't see that as a plus, rather it could signal the end of our species.
I used to think so too, until I read about Socrates criticising the notion of books and writing because it would alter the human mind and reduce the capacity for memory and discussion. It got me thinking about the fact that both books and smartphones are examples of communication technology. Technology shapes us as much as we shape it. It has always been so and we cannot really separate human intellect from its manifestation in technological advances. It's what gives us the evolutionary advantage over other species and allows us to survive in different environments. The clothes that keep us warm in different climates, the agricultural advances that allow en masse production of food, networks and satellites that allow us to have this conversation and exchange knowledge - this is the intermediary mechanism by which the advantage of the human intellect manifests.
Books and writing are fine - they are not used enough or by young people to alter brain chemistry and structure. The changes in structure and biochemistry have been confirmed by scientists studying the morphology of preteen/teen brains. These changes are permanent, because they are made in a developing brain. It is thought that these changes are the outcome of the brain accommodating itself to the use of an external device for analytical thinking and communication. Verbal/social skills, analytical thinking, and memory are affected. We will evolve into a species dependent on an electronic extension of our minds. When the electricity is turned off, so will we be.
I don't dispute the findings of changes in the human brain from interaction with different types of technology. I've read an interesting article recently about the way human mind changes after reading a novel too. (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.108...)I don't necessarily agree that it is evidence of de-evolution though, only of the amazing plasticity and adaptability of the human brain.
I think the danger lies not in any particular format of communication, but in loss of critical thinking skills, capacity for logic, and ability to assess the quality of information sources - something that should be taught to all people regardless of which technology they choose to use.
