Are we still evolving?

[TinCow]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics. This seems to be a common opinion amongst a great deal of people that I have spoken to, but it also seems to be a rather blatant violation of the laws of nature. So that's the question; are we still evolving?

[InsaneApache]

I am.

[Ja'chyra]

Some people never started

[English assassin]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics.

Whoever said "most people" reproduce regardless of genetics seems to have forgotten the world outside North America and western Europe.

Yes, we are still evolving. A concrete example is the massive selection pressure being exerted in Africa in favour of people whose immune systems can process HIV effectively. No doubt in time many people in Africa will be immune to HIV, or, more accurately, will not be made ill by being infected by HIV. In the same way that the black death killed essentially everyone in Europe whose immune system was not very good at responding to the plague bacterium. Its evolution in action and you can see it today.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics. This seems to be a common opinion amongst a great deal of people that I have spoken to, but it also seems to be a rather blatant violation of the laws of nature. So that's the question; are we still evolving?
.
I'm pretty certain that some homo sapiens around my habitat will grow excess hair and tails in a few generations. Whether I'll be around to cheer "I told you" is ambigious. ~:handball:
.

[TinCow]

.
I'm pretty certain that some homo sapiens around my habitat will grow excess hair and tails in a few generations. Whether I'll be around to cheer "I told you" is ambigious. ~:handball:
.

HAH! I had actually heard somewhere that evolution seemed to be tending towards increased baldness. I'm not sure how anyone would determine this, but at least it makes my father feel better when I tell him he's 'advanced'.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, it's been proved that centra for egoism and evil shrewdness has increased after civilization, mostly because limited egoism and evil shrewdness is favored strongly by today's society. Luckily enough to most evil aren't favored, but being a mini-devil is very benefitial.

[Duke Malcolm]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve. Also, it might be reasonable to say that further evolution in humans would be somewhat impared due to the avoidance of survival of the fittest (or most well-adapted).

[Rodion Romanovich]

A more thorough answer than mine above is:
1. All species that have no evolutionary pressure devolves sooner or later, in the particular fields where it has no evolutionary pressure. Of course, when it loses ALL abilities to survive, it must regain them because then an evolutionary pressure is again created. So usually it's only certain skills/properties that are lost when pressure disappears.
- This means we'll lose many natural skills eventually, if there's no pressure to keep them

2. Depending on how the lack of pressure is, and how the implementation of the property is, the devolving will take different shapes. For instance if the genetical construction for a certain property is simple because it comes automatically from genes for other properties, then it might be kept even if it's no longer needed. That's why rudiments such as the sacrum bone etc. remain, and toes, which become more unnecessary when shoes are used.

3. If there's a new evolutionary pressure, it'll result in different properties being favored.

4. An organism is usually a reflection of it's evolutionary pressure. Once can predict how it'll evolve by looking at it's evolutionary pressure.

No. 4 is interesting because it gives suggestions about how society should be formed. If too much evilness and dishonorable behavior is favored, we'll change our own species. The worst scenario is if a changed human species is changed in a way so that it changes the society in a way that changes the species more in that direction, so that the species then changes the society etc. in absurdum until it's created a very strong development in one direction, if that direction is a bad one, for example one that leads to more violence and destruction.

I'm too lazy to elaborate on No. 4, but I think it's a very interesting field of philosophy. I can at least say that it's a much more complex thing than it seems at first, as every evolutionary pressure may get a response in that the next generation changes society and thereby the evolutionary pressure again, so that there's feedback in the system. Add to that the extreme importance of society factors for creation of behavior, and the system gets very, very complex. I can't describe this entirely without some 100 pages or so, which wouldn't fit here. Many political ideologies implement thoughts based on No. 4 without admitting it's based on it. I think many of the ideas are interesting and contain some truth, but most of them are wrong because they fail to see the big picture - it's much bigger than most people can realize. Some examples of ideas that are based on No. 4 without exlicitly admitting it:
- death penalty for or against?
- should criminals etc. have right to have an offspring?
- priority systems in health care
etc.

Most of the questions are controversial because most ideologies implement solutions that favors only certain groups of people. I'm not talking races mostly (even though racial discrimination occurs), but instead based on certain properties in how you behave and look etc., many very subtle things.

I think the only fair way to handle such questions is to make sure the pattern of who are favored shouldn't be different from that in nature. While some say this would disfavor some weak people, they fail to see that the current system disfavors many biologically strong but in society weak people, and that they thereby are just as bad in that they oppress those who are weak according just another view on who's weak and who's strong. But this view of mine doesn't mean anyone should be forbidden to live or killed, or course, but rather that the selection should be based on reproduction so that the reproduction pattern creates the same evolutionary pattern as in nature. Choosing any other system would be oppressing those who are disfavored by the system, and make those oppressed and give them full reason to turn tables and start oppressing the others instead. All evolutionary pressure patterns will disfavor some group, so the only pressure pattern that could be justified is the natural one. This particular question I'd like to hear opinions about - is there any answer that could be justified, or am I wrong choosing the natural pattern as the one justified one? Or should we research which pattern gives greatest chances of success for the species, and choose as pattern? Well, the latter is quite complex. Physically we must only reproduce if we're strong and healthy, and still maintain genetical variety in the population. Mentally, we must evolve in a way so that we won't change the society system to in the future create an evolutionary pattern that will result in a destructive development, or result in an offspring one thousand generations ahead that will change society in such a way. This solution of using a manmade evolutionary pattern is IMO too complex and difficult to handle and also controversial, in that everyone will probably try to favor their own genes.

Still, I think it's a question that mankind will repeatedly be posed, no matter how hard we try to hide it because of it's being so controversial, and it's better to once and for all find an answer. Why not use the natural pressure pattern, but with letting the actual sorting only be handled by reproduction, and still trying to save lives as hard as possible so as to avoid sorting caused by death? If we refuse to choose a balanced middle opinion of that type, we might face more mass-murdering future dictators trying to breed us to what he thinks is best. My system would cause least pain. It might not be a good axiom, but I find minimizing pain and increasing the chances of survival of the human species is the objective of any society philosophy.

[Lazul]

ofcourse we are, how ells would you explain Me becoming an Über-human!? uh? uh? uh? :bow:

[Fragony]

We are evolving but not for the better. All those medicines are making us weak.

[yesdachi]

Whoever said "most people" reproduce regardless of genetics seems to have forgotten the world outside North America and western Europe.

Yes, we are still evolving. A concrete example is the massive selection pressure being exerted in Africa in favour of people whose immune systems can process HIV effectively. No doubt in time many people in Africa will be immune to HIV, or, more accurately, will not be made ill by being infected by HIV. In the same way that the black death killed essentially everyone in Europe whose immune system was not very good at responding to the plague bacterium. Its evolution in action and you can see it today.
This is interesting and requires some more investigation.:book:


I think we are still evolving but it is a long process and we are in the age of the microwave and want to see results NOW. But IMO evolution is subtle and slow moving in humans and difficult to measure in decades or even century’s. I do think we have, or are close to evolving past the need to evolve. We can create, invent, produce, or alter just about anything we need that is not ours naturally. But that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is going to keep happening.

The thought that we are basically past survival of the fittest is kind of disappointing to me. I think a human sized mousetrap may be called for.~;)

[Adrian II]

We are evolving but not for the better. All those medicines are making us weak.Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo! :bow:

[Viking]

We evolve by the fact that our genes mutate, and that we take care of everyone no matter how mis-shaped they ought to be by birth.

[Hurin_Rules]

Are you talking about purely biological (i.e. genetic) evolution or cultural as well?

We continue to develop new tools and technologies. So evolution has not halted on the cultural level, nor will it for the forseeable future.

I also find it hard to understand (maybe the scientists can enlighten me) how any species could stop evolving (short of it being extinguished completely). People still make choices about when and how much to breed. Some segments of the population have more offspring than others. Diseases still kill off more people with less immunities to them. All of these ensure that the next generation is different than the last and that humans keep changing.

Our cultural and socio-economic systems (environment) still favour certain traits, don't they?

[TinCow]

I was only referring to biological. Personally, I believe that it's impossible to remove us from the laws of nature since we're nothing more than smart apes. I thought it would make an interesting discussion though.

[Xiahou]

Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo! :bow:
Not to mention, a very succinct argument against state-run healthcare. ~D ~:joker:

[Rob The Bastard]

Umm, not sure... check back with me in 40,000 years.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve. Also, it might be reasonable to say that further evolution in humans would be somewhat impared due to the avoidance of survival of the fittest (or most well-adapted).
.
That sounds, on philosophical ground, to me as XIXth century Euro-centric romanticisme with potential racisme added. In short, κραπ. Notice on philosophical ground.

It's the hierarchy of species single cell virii on the bottom and humans at the top, white Europeans being on the topmost. I'm not accusing the lecturer of anything but his theory sounds to much under the influence of that linear evolution nonsense. ~:handball:
.

[Soulforged]

A moralist would say no. I say yes.

[Byzantine Prince]

We have no more need for biological evolution. In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?

Anyways humans have always been somwhere between animal and god. When we reach god evolution and mother earth can kiss our behinds. ~;p

[Papewaio]

Unless we make unmutated clones of ourselves we will continue to evolve. It might not be significant changes as we aren't under a die or thrive environment... then again look at the decreased fertility rate of the west. Westerners who cannot juggle a job and a family and go just for a job will die out, they would die out even faster if it wasn't for IVF.

[Byzantine Prince]

Unless we make unmutated clones of ourselves we will continue to evolve. It might not be significant changes as we aren't under a die or thrive environment... then again look at the decreased fertility rate of the west. Westerners who cannot juggle a job and a family and go just for a job will die out, they would die out even faster if it wasn't for IVF.
Pape, even if in a thousand years every white person dies out(quite unlikely but I'm speaking hypothetically) then other groups would take over as ecomical powers and they would do the same thing.

So my question reamins supreme over what you said, 'In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?'

In 40,000 years every group would have gotten up and down economically culturally etc, or even mixed together. The question is would you need a body by then. 40,000 years is a very small amount of time to evolve BTW. The differences in genetics would be tiny.

[Togakure]

Yes, we are still evolving.

[Papewaio]

Pape, even if in a thousand years every white person dies out(quite unlikely but I'm speaking hypothetically) then other groups would take over as ecomical powers and they would do the same thing.

So my question reamins supreme over what you said, 'In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?'

In 40,000 years every group would have gotten up and down economically culturally etc, or even mixed together. The question is would you need a body by then. 40,000 years is a very small amount of time to evolve BTW. The differences in genetics would be tiny.

I referred to Western Lifestyle, Japan and other nations are rapidly adopting some of our key lifestyle points which decrease fertility.

The frequency of genes will change.

Those who can reproduce on a diet of fast food, while working long hours under artifical light will have their genes increasing in frequency compared with those who cannot survive the modern lifestyle.

[Ice]

Yes we are still evolving. We will continue evolve indefinately. We will always find a better way to be suited to our environment. Speaking of evolution, I saw on the discovery channel, a while ago, about what animals would inhabit the Earth a couple million years from now (If we don't destroy it and the current evolutionary patterns progresses) and they were pretty interesting. I don't remember exact details, though.

[solypsist]

once a populations hits a certain mark, evolution stops. we're at that point as a species, just like the norway rat is. our population levels are not expected to decrease dramatically in the future, so there's no way for 'advantageous' genes to overtake the less advantageous ones. from here on out, it's all about good health and education insofar as humans increasing their potential.

[Fragony]

Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo! :bow:

~D ~D ~D

[English assassin]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve.

No disrespect but he can't have said exactly that since "need" to evolve does not drive evolution, (unless you are a Lamarkian which Dawkins certainly is not.)

If there is genetic change and selection pressure there will be evolution, as sure as night follows day. In a population of 6 billion I think we can be pretty sure there will be plenty of genetic drift. As Mouzafphaerre suggests it is only possible to imagine that there is no selection pressure if you live in the west (and don't read newspapers).

Therefore there must be evolution. QED.

It may well be true that there is a lot less evolution than you might expect, since rather than adapting to the environment man is rather good at adapting the environment to him. But we aren't above the laws of nature yet.


In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?

This is really pushing Keynes famous comment about the long term to the limit. Yes I do, but lets play with it because it introduces an interesting idea. According to Dawkins evolution is the process in which information carriers (in our case DNA) are differentially selected on the basis of their abilities to get into the next generation.

Your disembodied future would, obviously, be DNAless. At some point therefore DNA, selected for on the basis of its ability to make more DNA, would have had to bring about a situation in which DNA was redundant and no longer produced. (This may have happened once before, if you believe there were RNA genomes in early organisms. Certainly its next to impossible to see how the original information carrier could have been DNA, its too complex, and too specialist) Its quite difficult to see how the supplanting of DNA would come about through evolution as Dawkins would understand it, unless you take some rather abstract view that its the "information" that somehow matters, and not its physical form.

My favourite mad scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, http://www.sheldrake.org/ could take that position and call it morphogenetic fields, but Dawkins couldn't.

(OT, read Sheldrake, kids. He may be mad, and he's probably wrong, but what if he isn't? Also, note he is still able to get debates with big hitting scientists, and have other labs test his ideas, which shows that whilst the lunatic fringe may like his ideas he himself is still some sort of real scientist)

[Ironside]

Are we going to look almost exactly the same in about 10.000-100.000 years? If no, then you've got evolution.

And about adapting to the modern society. Do you actually think that the current society will last to 2205, let alone to 12005?

Personally I suspect that we will bypass most evolutionary laws when the genetical manipulation has becamed good enough. Or to be more speciffic, we will adapt in the way we want, not the way that is best for survival.

[Kralizec]

Doesn't evolution require that there is a given maximum of speciments that can be supported by the environment? As better adapted specimen come along, there will be no more room for the "old versions", who are marginalised or even go extinct. Humanity doesn't seem to have reached it's peak though. And since we take care of born babies no matter what, it seems like this limit is more likely to come into existence by artificial constructs like China's 1 child law.
But then again for humans to evolve it woudl require that the elite, those who go far accomplishing things in their life, to have more children then the rest.

[English assassin]

But then again for humans to evolve it woudl require that the elite, those who go far accomplishing things in their life, to have more children then the rest

No, evolution is not a value driven process. If the "underclass" who achieve nothing in their lives have more children, that too is evolution (assuming we think this has some connection to genes)

Its a classic mistake to imagine evolution as an upwards striving process, prodcing as its most marvellous creation man himself. Evolution doesn't make things "better", only "more fitted to the environment than their immediate competitors". Many parasites, for instance have lost genes or organs as the adapt to the parasitic lifestyle, an example of evolution driving them in a direction you might regard as "worse"

[Rodion Romanovich]

But then again for humans to evolve it woudl require that the elite, those who go far accomplishing things in their life, to have more children then the rest.

This is an ethical problem - who is better at accomplishing things? Someone who had luck or had rich influential parents and grew up with the right contacts? Are they really stronger biologically in a world where diseases are getting worse and worse (medicine doesn't weaken us as much genetically as it does strengthen the diseases - luckily we nowadays have hygiene to compensate that). Or those who have the power to decide about these things? Or nobody? And is it worth more to be able to interpret some ugly pixels as characters and read, than it is to be strong and resistant to disease? Etc. Every form of society will favor certain people more and disfavor other people. Certain persons may have faster reproduction speed because they can handle more offsprings but in return they have higher infant lethality, they're not favored by an overall birth control based on everyone being allowed only a certain number of children. The late marriage age and the decreased will and ability (through stress and career pressure, as well as feminism) to have children for certain people, will most likely cause an unjust sorting out of people in a way that's unacceptable and unethical. On the other hand we also have the necessity for birth control and decreasing the world population before we lose our last abilities to provide everyone with food - a scenario that would result in heavy conflicts over the little food that is left.

@Byzantine Prince: how would a species that doesn't have a body be favored over a species WITH a body? Would our DNA also stop existing? Theoretically, it's possible that a safer system than DNA would replace DNA, but then we're probably speaking of billions of years. A totally stable replacement for DNA would remove much of the need for genetical variety and great birth numbers in order for a species to survive, but it's not certain that such a species would be strong in the long term, as other species with variety have a greater chance of evolving into a being superior in the competition for the niche that the more static being is and will remain.

Or do you mean that human actions would lead to removal of the human body but still make us keep existing? Then, how would we keep existing? We would certainly not be the same without bodies, as bodies are a natural part of us, therefore, we can't exist without bodies - if we have no bodies we aren't we, but something else. Plus it would be quite boring to livee if women had no bodies ~:handball:

[Byzantine Prince]

@Byzantine Prince: how would a species that doesn't have a body be favored over a species WITH a body? Would our DNA also stop existing?
A species without a body is not necessarily incapable of defending itself. Our brains would be all that would be needed in a perpetual state of bondage with technology and digitalized data.



Or do you mean that human actions would lead to removal of the human body but still make us keep existing? Then, how would we keep existing? We would certainly not be the same without bodies, as bodies are a natural part of us, therefore, we can't exist without bodies - if we have no bodies we aren't we, but something else. Plus it would be quite boring to livee if women had no bodies ~:handball:
That is a philosophical phalacy if I ever saw one. ~:rolleyes:
Our essence is who we are. This is positioned in our brains, therefore the brain(and maybe the spinal chord) is the only thing that we need as a shell, in order to keep our essence without it dissipating.

As for women, it's all in the emotional connection, the pleasure is part of the biological need to make breeding attractive. Then again maybe I am overestimating your maturity.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Byzantine Prince: It's your own definition of who WE are. I happen to define it to be the organism our DNA has created for encapsulating it and helping it to reproduce.

I try my "philosophical phalacy" again:
- given that we ARE our brains and our body, a future without any humans with BOTH brains and body would be a future where no humans existed.

The "phalacy" is about our disagreement of what a human is, i.e. a definition, axiom or premise, depending on what you'd like to call it. Therefore, what we are really discussing is whether or not it's sane to define a human as it's brain. In THAT debate, which we can hold once you've admitted that it's the definition that's different and not my logics that are failing, I'd like to point out that a huge portion of our nerve system is located in the body. You can't feel anything from a woman unless you have your senses, and the senses are 1. the sensory nerve ends, 2. the "wires" and "gates" (if we compare it to a digital circuit, which works very well as it's almost the same principles), 3. the brain. Therefore, you need to keep the sensory nerve ends in order to keep the emotions, which means you'll need at least a portion of the body. But the sensory nerve ends won't give the same signals if they aren't covered by tissue similar to that of a normal body. Thus you need to either add this tissue, or change the nerves, possible also up in the brain. Many of the nerve ends, actually a majority of the brain, is used for things such as balance, movement and things that are useless without a body. The sensory parts for movement and similar are also not working normally without a brain. Finally, a person who doesn't move and act, things that require a body, will see the world from a different perspective. Also, if your senses aren't put in the same angles as they are on a human with a body, you'll also experience the world differently, and your brain must be changed in order to react in the same way on the environment. I don't see how you could remain the same in the brain but without having a body, without starting to think in a very different way.

[Togakure]

once a populations hits a certain mark, evolution stops. we're at that point as a species, just like the norway rat is. our population levels are not expected to decrease dramatically in the future, so there's no way for 'advantageous' genes to overtake the less advantageous ones. from here on out, it's all about good health and education insofar as humans increasing their potential.
What if, in the future, we make the big jump into space and colonize other worlds? New worlds, new environments, new adaptations become necessary, etc.

[TinCow]

40,000 years is a very small amount of time to evolve BTW. The differences in genetics would be tiny.


Interestingly, this might not be so. Here's an interesting article I read last month that applies very heavily to this topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4222460.stm


'Proof' our brains are evolving

University scientists say they have found strong proof that the human brain is still evolving.

By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.

One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe.

This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science

Each gene variant emerged around the same time as the advent of so called "cultural" behaviours.

The microcephalin variant appeared along with the emergence of traits such as art and music, religious practices and sophisticated tool-making techniques, which date back to about 50,000 years ago.

It is now present in about 70% of humans alive today.

[Byzantine Prince]

@Byzantine Prince: It's your own definition of who WE are. I happen to define it to be the organism our DNA has created for encapsulating it and helping it to reproduce..
Well it's accepted by almost all philosophers. I can't think of any philosopher that says what you said, because it's blatantly wrong.



The "phalacy" is about our disagreement of what a human is, i.e. a definition, axiom or premise, depending on what you'd like to call it. Therefore, what we are really discussing is whether or not it's sane to define a human as it's brain.
I didn't. I said a human is his essence. The brain is what holds the essence, its shell if you like. That's why when the brain stops working you die.


In THAT debate, which we can hold once you've admitted that it's the definition that's different and not my logics that are failing
Your logic is bad.


I'd like to point out that a huge portion of our nerve system is located in the body. You can't feel anything from a woman unless you have your senses, and the senses are 1. the sensory nerve ends, 2. the "wires" and "gates" (if we compare it to a digital circuit, which works very well as it's almost the same principles), 3. the brain. Therefore, you need to keep the sensory nerve ends in order to keep the emotions, which means you'll need at least a portion of the body. But the sensory nerve ends won't give the same signals if they aren't covered by tissue similar to that of a normal body. Thus you need to either add this tissue, or change the nerves, possible also up in the brain. Many of the nerve ends, actually a majority of the brain, is used for things such as balance, movement and things that are useless without a body. The sensory parts for movement and similar are also not working normally without a brain. Finally, a person who doesn't move and act, things that require a body, will see the world from a different perspective. Also, if your senses aren't put in the same angles as they are on a human with a body, you'll also experience the world differently, and your brain must be changed in order to react in the same way on the environment. I don't see how you could remain the same in the brain but without having a body, without starting to think in a very different way.
I don't see any logic here. Emotions are not dependent on feeling the world.

[solypsist]

well then we may evolve, but the question is: are we still evolving?


What if, in the future, we make the big jump into space and colonize other worlds? New worlds, new environments, new adaptations become necessary, etc.

[Papewaio]

Yes, every time a person is the last one standing in a village wiped out by a disease then his or her genes have shown a gene frequency change with regards to the local population.

Everytime a rockstar whose genes allows him to make 'better' music gets a groupie pregnant that is an increase in the gene frequency in the population.

Rich business men who get there through having a superior set of business acumen due in part to genes for maths and social skills who then has 3 marriages and 6 children will be outperforming the rest of society sitting on 2.1 children per adult pairing... his gene frequency will increase.

Every ultra-geek that never has a physical relationship will find his unsocial gene set frequency decrease in the population.

If your genes are in tune with the current memes you can expect them to flourish. If your genes are out of tune you might find you are socially ostracized and an outcast whose genes failing to match the memes are not added back into the gene pool.

Social Trends (memes) are an Evolutionary pressure on our genes.

[Quietus]

I said a human is his essence. The brain is what holds the essence, its shell if you like. That's why when the brain stops working you die. Same thing with your lungs, your heart, your stomach etc. The brain is merely an accessory. As an analogy the Means are your somatic cells (your body), the End are your germ cells (for reproduction). Every cell initially has your dna, but only the germ cells count in the end.

If the brain is the essence, then when you have kids, they will have your brain and knowledge too. What do organisms have in common? DNA or RNA. Do trees have brains? A Virus?

The dna is your real essence, without it you wouldn't exist at all.

[Togakure]

well then we may evolve, but the question is: are we still evolving?

Ok, ok ... but taken in the context of then and now, if we do indeed evolve, then at this point we were still evolving, yes?

Interesting to see the different levels of abstraction by which people answer, and the varying degrees of emphasis on things philosophical, scientific, futurist, etc. Fascinating how different minds work.

[English assassin]

Social Trends (memes) are an Evolutionary pressure on our genes

An interesting and valid point. A good example would be the catholicism meme, with its ban on contraception. However just as we are able to adapt our physical environment, reducing its selective pressure on us, so we are even more able to adapt our memes. Other than the really powerful and enduring memes (and I can really only think of religions in that catagory) i doubt that many other memes would exert a material selection pressure on genes. After all, if it were true that gentlemen preferred blondes, the response would be only to increase the sales of peroxide rather than the frequency of blonde genes.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well it's accepted by almost all philosophers. I can't think of any philosopher that says what you said, because it's blatantly wrong.

Then call me a scientist, and almost all scientists are with me and would agree that you're blatantly wrong, or rather not wrong, as this is a definition and not a conclusion based on any fact. You're free to have your definition but then be aware of the fact that it's something else than your instinctive concept of human that'd survive if you followed your non-instinctive, formal definition of human. Hopefully you already know this. The definition of human closest tied to the instinctive informal definition of the word is more close to my definition. Your emotional view of the future human you're visualizing would be very different from your emotional view of today's humans. But maybe you don't care about that in your definition. In any case I don't see why humans would WANT to deliberately remove their bodies, neither do I see why they would naturally evolve into losing their bodies, as the bodies, in one form or another, are very much needed for survival in evolution through natural or unnatural selection.


I didn't. I said a human is his essence. The brain is what holds the essence, its shell if you like. That's why when the brain stops working you die.

What is the essence? A human who never acts in any way at all, what essence is flowing through his/her brain? A human who never feels anything, what essence has he/she in his/her brain? It's been scientifically shown that the brain is heavily changed during your lifetime, caused by outside influences felt by your senses. If you'd have a newborn without senses and let it live for some time, that individual would have almost no essence at all for brain because impressions is what creates most of the wiring in your brain. A deaf man develops better sight, and blind man develops better hearing, a deaf-blind develops better sensational ability. But a man with no senses at all can never get his brain fully developed. Then the brain remains a half-finished result of a not yet finished developmental process, which was triggered by his/her genes and the protein gradients in the egg cell. A brain unaffected by the outside world is therefore the result of genes and protein gradients in an egg - so your definition of a human is equivalent to just that.



Your logic is bad.

Please enlighten me to what I do wrong.
1. Were my definitions wrong?
- Wrong definitions don't affect whether the logics are good or not. Logics is about turning definitions and axioms into conclusions. Determining whether a definition and axiom is good or not is philosophy. However this doesn't mean logics don't play a major part in counter-proving philosophical theories. The philosophy is the analysis, the logics is the synthesis. If the syntesizing of a philosophical idea is illogical or leads to very strange conclusions, then logics can show that. But you can never say the logical conclusion is wrong because the starting conditions of a logical conclusion is wrong. The end-result of such a logical conclusion might be wrong compared to reality, but isn't a wrong logical conclusion. Therefore you shouldn't take a logical conclusion for more than it is, but not say it's not a correct logical conclusion either. The definition of a logical conclusion is: A statement p is a conclusion of premises a1, a2... an if and only if a1 AND a2 AND ... AND an => p.
2. Was my conclusion drawing wrong?
- If so tell me which law of logic I broke.



I don't see any logic here. Emotions are not dependent on feeling the world.

Let's start by what an emotion is - it's a signal given that makes a part of your brain, namely the reptile brain, feel good. It's induced by chemical signals. Where do the chemical signals come from? Either by:
1. there were certain chemicals in your brain at your birth, which were predetermined to react in a way so that in a certain time after your birth, they'd react into the chemicals needed to cause that signal (hormones starting puberty is an example of this type of signal).
2. you recived chemical/physical or other non-feeling based impact from the outside world, which caused the effect directly or indirectly.
3. you recived sensations from the outside world which went through your senses, and induced the emotional signal

All signals are dependent on signals either determined at the time of birth, or caused by outside affection through your senses or through other paths. There's no other way in which a signal can arise inside a human brain.

Emotions are some of the body signals, so by basic laws of logic, we can conclude that everything that is true to ALL BODY SIGNALS must be true for A CERTAIN SET of these body signals. Therefore, we can say about emotional signals that they're caused by either of these:
1. they were predetermined at birth
2. they were decided by outside signals of a kind that weren't read by the human senses
3. they were decided by outside signals of a kind that was read by the human senses.

If we look at what the evolutionary purpose of emotions are, we should easily understand (if we understood evolution) that they're either rewarding an act or lack of act, or punishing an act or lack of act (try to find counter-examples to this for any non-rudimentary instincts...). They're used as the way to tell the organism how to behave in order to maximize it's chances of long-term genetical survival, i.e. by surviving personally, by reproducing with a good matching partner, and if necessary take care of it's offspring. Now think of all actions you do during a normal day. How many of them could you perform without senses? How many would work in a logical way if you couldn't hear, see, feel, smell or taste? Imagine searching for food - where would you go? Imagine trying to reproduce - how would you start? Etc. Emotions are the basic tools of instincts, and having the instincts NOT depend on the outside world would be having the instincts wander about blindly, and they would be quite useless instincts. Why do you think 100 percent of all animals have developed senses? Name one single animal without any senses at all, and I'd be surprised. To clarify what I mean here, my definition of sense is something that can take care of an ouside signal and transport it into the organism, possibly to result in further signals causing the organism to carry out an action now or in the future.

[Byzantine Prince]

You certainly like long responces. I'm not a fan though....

Then call me a scientist, and almost all scientists are with me and would agree that you're blatantly wrong, or rather not wrong, as this is a definition and not a conclusion based on any fact. You're free to have your definition but then be aware of the fact that it's something else than your instinctive concept of human that'd survive if you followed your non-instinctive, formal definition of human. Hopefully you already know this. The definition of human closest tied to the instinctive informal definition of the word is more close to my definition. Your emotional view of the future human you're visualizing would be very different from your emotional view of today's humans. But maybe you don't care about that in your definition. In any case I don't see why humans would WANT to deliberately remove their bodies, neither do I see why they would naturally evolve into losing their bodies, as the bodies, in one form or another, are very much needed for survival in evolution through natural or unnatural selection.
Instincts are indeed positioned inside your brain.
Yes the emotional range will be much wider without bodies, for the world can be experienced in it's pure form. By getting rid of biological bodies I am not suggesting that the brain should lose all interaction with the world. Quite the opposite. I should have made that clear to begin with.



What is the essence? A human who never acts in any way at all, what essence is flowing through his/her brain? A human who never feels anything, what essence has he/she in his/her brain? It's been scientifically shown that the brain is heavily changed during your lifetime, caused by outside influences felt by your senses. If you'd have a newborn without senses and let it live for some time, that individual would have almost no essence at all for brain because impressions is what creates most of the wiring in your brain. A deaf man develops better sight, and blind man develops better hearing, a deaf-blind develops better sensational ability. But a man with no senses at all can never get his brain fully developed. Then the brain remains a half-finished result of a not yet finished developmental process, which was triggered by his/her genes and the protein gradients in the egg cell. A brain unaffected by the outside world is therefore the result of genes and protein gradients in an egg - so your definition of a human is equivalent to just that.
You make an interesting statement here. A man with no senses would develop his intellect in a way that would unparalleled with any other type of background. The development of the intellect along with connection to technology and to other entities would develop into the most sophisitcated emotional system ever known.

The problems you mention are technical and are surely solvable by technical means, which we have proved with advancement, are quite easy for us.


Please enlighten me to what I do wrong.
1. Were my definitions wrong?
- Wrong definitions don't affect whether the logics are good or not. Logics is about turning definitions and axioms into conclusions. Determining whether a definition and axiom is good or not is philosophy. However this doesn't mean logics don't play a major part in counter-proving philosophical theories. The philosophy is the analysis, the logics is the synthesis. If the syntesizing of a philosophical idea is illogical or leads to very strange conclusions, then logics can show that. But you can never say the logical conclusion is wrong because the starting conditions of a logical conclusion is wrong. The end-result of such a logical conclusion might be wrong compared to reality, but isn't a wrong logical conclusion. Therefore you shouldn't take a logical conclusion for more than it is, but not say it's not a correct logical conclusion either. The definition of a logical conclusion is: A statement p is a conclusion of premises a1, a2... an if and only if a1 AND a2 AND ... AND an => p.
2. Was my conclusion drawing wrong?
- If so tell me which law of logic I broke.
Well then somoeone needs to throw a Wittgenstein book your way. Semantics are integral to good logic. No semantics, no logic.
As for the rest, I don't know what it's about.



Let's start by what an emotion is - it's a signal given that makes a part of your brain, namely the reptile brain, feel good. It's induced by chemical signals. Where do the chemical signals come from? Either by:
1. there were certain chemicals in your brain at your birth, which were predetermined to react in a way so that in a certain time after your birth, they'd react into the chemicals needed to cause that signal (hormones starting puberty is an example of this type of signal).
2. you recived chemical/physical or other non-feeling based impact from the outside world, which caused the effect directly or indirectly.
3. you recived sensations from the outside world which went through your senses, and induced the emotional signal

All signals are dependent on signals either determined at the time of birth, or caused by outside affection through your senses or through other paths. There's no other way in which a signal can arise inside a human brain.

Yes, but this does not prove your point.

However emotions do not have to be pleasing. They have a range as broad as human intellect.



Emotions are some of the body signals, so by basic laws of logic, we can conclude that everything that is true to ALL BODY SIGNALS must be true for A CERTAIN SET of these body signals.
Body signals can easily be emulated by the means of technology. We both know this. If technology can reach a level that it can preserve a brain's vitality outside of it shell, it can damn well also emulate all the signals that the body did and also make new ones opening up new possibilities for a evolution of intellect.




If we look at what the evolutionary purpose of emotions are, we should easily understand (if we understood evolution) that they're either rewarding an act or lack of act, or punishing an act or lack of act (try to find counter-examples to this for any non-rudimentary instincts...).
We are certainly not what nature intended so why should we assume that nature knows best? What difference does it make WHY emotions are there. There are reasons for every single aspect of our senses that is biological. That is why we need to move on. We need to go to a higher plane of existence.



Why do you think 100 percent of all animals have developed senses? Name one single animal without any senses at all, and I'd be surprised.

We can have no senses at all, then we would cease to be animals and go to that higher plane I was talking about. It's evolution. Senses can be emulated in the brain just like doing hallucinogenic drugs emulates something that you are not sensing. The reality is that senses do not exist, but the intellect does, because it recognizes itself. The intellect is able to communicate using a variety of words that have meaning and that is everything. Language is everything. When you are reading a book, all you are seeing is meanings in the back of your head. The means is irrelevent. The fact that you 'see' the book and the words is trivial.

This could lead one to believe that the mind is somehow going to let go of all language and meaning of emotions and so on, but this is simply speculation. The mind can choose to accept any concept and emotion for what it's worth and give it as much importance as it wants.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Are we still evolving?
https://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5627/evolution4sb.jpg
.

[Rodion Romanovich]

the emotional range will be much wider without bodies, for the world can be experienced in it's pure form. By getting rid of biological bodies I am not suggesting that the brain should lose all interaction with the world. Quite the opposite. I should have made that clear to begin with.

So you're talking about replacing the natural senses with some other form of senses? Before you clarify that I can't respond to your other statements. If you do mean that, it makes sense what you're saying, because then you mean the same thing I mean. Indeed, the humans senses aren't telling the truth, they're just approximations of reality. Our own senses developed by natural selection have only been developed to tell us something close to the truth about phenomens that we were likely to experience in the pre-civilization society. All other abilities of the brain and senses are just side-effects. With our current senses and brains, we have very little ability to see the entire truth, and see truths about bigger things such as the universe, the fundamental low-level particle physics and so on. Both our rational thinking abilities/logic, our instincts and our senses aren't adapted to see things we didn't need to see in nature because seeing them didn't meant enough extra benefit.

So I think what you say mostly makes sense if you by "no senses" mean replacing the natural existing senses by technologically created and hopefully more accurate senses. However, I still claim that the brain's rational ability isn't adapted enough to understand the big questions even if given better senses. The inner parts of the brain are adapted to the senses being as weak/strong as they are, and adapted to their inaccuracies. But this would just get us into a traditional "how much can we really know about the truth" debate.



Well then somoeone needs to throw a Wittgenstein book your way. Semantics are integral to good logic. No semantics, no logic.
As for the rest, I don't know what it's about.


More often unclear definitions are the cause of misunderstanding and flawed logic than it causes deep insight. In order to debate well, one must agree to the definitions of the words, or at least know the other debater's definitions. In order to think clearly, one must see the difference between analyzing the correctness of a logical conclusion and analyzing the correctness of one's axioms.


However emotions do not have to be pleasing. They have a range as broad as human intellect.

I never said they were only pleasing. I said they're only either pleasing or painful, and everything along the scale between those points. Tell me one feeling which isn't pleasing or painful or a combination of those two?



Body signals can easily be emulated by the means of technology. We both know this. If technology can reach a level that it can preserve a brain's vitality outside of it shell, it can damn well also emulate all the signals that the body did and also make new ones opening up new possibilities for a evolution of intellect.


You're suggesting replacing natural senses with other senses, aren't you? So you never meant removal of senses altogether, just changing to other senses? Well, from a technical point of view that's of course possible. Remember also that one can emulate body signals by other paths than the natural ones, because the organisms are only adapted to natural stimuli, and are therefore totally unpredictable in unnatural situations, such as an injection of a researched medicine etc.

But if we look at the evolution principle and the instability of all technology created by humans, I must say that an evolution to lose the natural body and replace it by manmade things is hardly going to be an improvement to the human ability to survive in the long term. If you read books about genetics and small-level biology you'll understand how many backup systems nature has in case of failures, it's nothing like what humans will be able to create in centuries.



We are certainly not what nature intended so why should we assume that nature knows best?


Nature is more complex than you seem to think. Look at the process of evolution for instance. After thousand generations, an animal that had genes which were predetermined to degrade over thousand generations and result in the death of all his thousandth generation offspring, is removed by evolution. A process like that means a species that has lived for a thousand generations is likely to live for many generations more. By knowing the past, evolution knows the future. This is true if the environment is virtually unchanged, and in nature it has been until humans invented civilization.



We are certainly not what nature intended


That's wrong. We're exactly what nature "intended". But nature has no soul and no goal, so nature doesn't intend. Your existence is because you are good at existing. Animals live because they're good at living. Plants live because they're good at living. Try to see how it all started. Chemical compunds who were stable remained alive. Chemical compounds who were able to replicate themselves remained alive. The others die, or die and reappear. Try to see that the reactions of any small chemicals in nature are ruled by the same principles as evolution of animals and plants. Nature has no intention for us, it's up to us to make the best of our existence.



What difference does it make WHY emotions are there. There are reasons for every single aspect of our senses that is biological. That is why we need to move on. We need to go to a higher plane of existence.

The causes of an effect make a very big difference. If you know why something exists, you get more information about it than you can get by any other method of philosphy and research. Knowing how it evolved is also a good source of information. The human brain may seem complex, but by understanding why it exists and what the elements of it came from, you can understand it's principles fully. A developmental biologist told me a wise thing: "the human body and brain are both extremely complex, almost impossible to understand fully if you look at how the individual cells and atoms are formed. But if you understand how it develops, if you understand how it's created, then you can understand that the complexity has a system, and by knowing that system you can know everything about it except the details". The processes through which the brain and body were created are indeed simple processes, and understanding them gives a deep insight into how the brain and body works, and understanding of the big picture in evolution. Another good example is a cloth on a table. It may be shaped in a very strange shape after lying on the table for a long time, but understanding the principles why it got the shape it did - repeated movement back and forth of parts of it, while friction prevented it from moving in other places, makes you fully understand the shape of the cloth.



We can have no senses at all, then we would cease to be animals and go to that higher plane I was talking about.


Why is a senseless individual on a higher plane than one with senses? Or are you again talking about the in some ways inaccurate natural senses being replaced by OTHER SENSES, so that we still have senses?



Language is everything.


Lanugage is the best way of hiding the truth from yourself and others. When you learn to think without words, you will see more of the truth than you've ever seen before. Language is inaccurate and never describes phenomenons in reality well. A common mistake is to come to a conclusion of the style: "for the object A, the statement B is true". With a vague definition of B, you continue: "since B is true for object A, C must be true". But the definition of B was so vague that you unknowingly changed it so that you used another definition of B when making the second conclusion.

A higher form of thinking is best achieved by understanding the weaknesses of your senses, and the strengths of them. Understand when they lie to you, and when they tell you truths no machines would ever tell you. Get rid of language and pictures in your head, and think of the things as what they really are.

Finally, regarding the replacing of human senses with machines: that could just as well be achieved by creating measurement equipment with a easily readable screen and read the results from it's screen. And what we need most aren't better senses, but better brains to interpret them or any signals from better senses if we'd have them. It's our brains that are lacking.

[Rodion Romanovich]

.

https://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5627/evolution4sb.jpg
.

~D I love that picture ~:cheers:

[Quietus]

Body signals can easily be emulated by the means of technology. We both know this. If technology can reach a level that it can preserve a brain's vitality outside of it shell, it can damn well also emulate all the signals that the body did and also make new ones opening up new possibilities for a evolution of intellect. You can't separate your body from the dna. Body signals are only possible due to dna. And every single cells have dna (at least initially).

You're thinking, a thinking, INORGANIC machine. Sorry, we're all organic. This fantastic, inorganic machine you're speaking of will need energy and maintainance in able to survive. How?

The human body is the best machine it can't be replaceable by an inorganic by a long shot. It is fully automated.

A inorganic, chess machine like Deep Blue or Chimera can be beaten if you unplug it. A human will defend itself when threatened.

[Lehesu]

Does anybody have the feeling that we will be hard-pressed to survive at our current rate of growth without some serious changes? Sometimes it almost seems like Earth (or God, or whatever) is trying to hit the reset button (hurricanes, tsunami, various diseases, increase population strain) and we just keep on resisting.

[bmolsson]

Well, I have decided that my family will be the first humans who can fly, therefore I throw my kids out of the balcony from 26th floor and if they can fly they will survive......... ~;)