Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

charge of spells and potions and summoning the power of the spirit world, and so did the women,

There were no spells, no magic, and no spirit world. Such nonsense only originated with the tower of babel. Primitive humans had no use for superstition and this is proven by the fact they had no words for "belief" or "thought. They lacked taxonomies and had no abstraction. The language broke Zipf's Law because they didn't think like us and didn't experience thought at all. Consciousness does not think. Homo omnisciencis thinks because we format all of reality in terms of what we believe.

How do you believe in God(s) unless your language contains the words "believe"? We can be sure there was no ancient high technology because there was no infrastructure to build it. And by the same token we know there were no ancient beliefs because language lacked the infrastructure of superstition. To people from after the tower of babel technology looks like magic and to people who don't understand science metaphysics looks like magic. How ironic that so many people parse the word "metaphysics" to mean only "magic". The irony is palpable. It is simply remarkable how invisible all these simple facts are because they are hidden in confusion from the tower of babel and the confusion of 19th century "science".

 

[cladking]

Thus, some women might have remained at the camp to cook or tend to the children while others were out gathering, but they could have done one another's jobs, because those skills were general knowledge to adolescent girls and women.

I doubt it. Cooking is science and the men were scientists.

Most of the things considered "women's work" today was performed by children. Are you aware that there were equal numbers of men, women, and children employed in pyramid construction? This implies two things; one that they weren't built in the manner we imagine but also that the work wasn't divided the way we would today (or in thew 1960's). Men are more naturally suited to cooking and always have been.

People, including those who call themselves experts, are looking at the past and seeing only themselves. Hunter gatherers were not even the same species as we are.

 

[cladking]

But all of this is a digression - a tangent inspired by your introduction of a claim about specialization and seeing the big picture.

Almost everybody now with two brain cells to rub together are trained in a specialty. This even goes on in our highly inefficient industry where even the poorest educated personnel tend to end up in specialized jobs. This is not conducive to seeing a big picture.

 

[cladking]

All knowledge is the result of experience,

Much of my knowledge is experiential but even for me it is a small fraction of total knowledge. I know experientially how rockets are designed and built but I have no experiential knowledge of Apollo XIII. All I know was what I read in the paper or saw on TV. Even in those days the quisling media lied though probably most of the reporting on this was mostly accurate except for what the writer was confused about. Some people, especially specialists who don't work with their hands or many instruments, have exceedingly little experiential knowledge. Indeed their experiential knowledge can be miniscule relative most animals.

Experiential knowledge is what you know in your guts and bones. A surgeon has plenty of experiential knowledge of a hernia operation but might have little other. He can operate in the dark but might not go when the light turns green because he doesn't understand the nature of traffic movement. He "thinks" he is delayed only a second or two getting home.

You could say something like "baseball is both an art and a science" but it would be far more accurate to say that the best baseball players have the ability and learned baseball scientifically but honed their skills through experience and muscle memory which is just another form of experiential knowledge like plastic memory. A boxer can't think about where and when to hit his opponent in the ring he must think of it beforehand and use experiential knowledge in the here and now. A pool player who hums as he plays is going to be hard to beat. And a technician who sings as he works is going to do a good job.

You can't truly learn anything from a book. You make models and format knowledge but it must be recalled in order to apply it in the real world. If it isn't experiential knowledge you can't use it like an instinct. Most specialties it just won't matter if you take an extra .05 seconds to think but it certainly can in baseball or even hypothesis formation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There were no spells, no magic, and no spirit world

That is incorrect, assuming you don't mean spells or magic that worked. If so, then you are correct. Neither of those is a more than superstition. Likewise, prayers and sacrifices to gods. But people did them as soon as it occurred to them that they might work.

I doubt it.

Nomadic men and women divided up responsibilities much they are still divided today, an early form of specialization. But really, who cares about this topic of specialization here? Do you? I don't.

You can't truly learn anything from a book.

I can and have. You mentioned baseball. I learned some baseball from books. Have you read Bill James and sabermetrics?

 

[cladking]

That is incorrect, assuming you don't mean spells or magic that worked. If so, then you are correct. Neither of those is a more than superstition. Likewise, prayers and sacrifices to gods. But people did them as soon as it occurred to them that they might work.

There exists no such evidence to support our translations of most words recorded before 2000 BC. This isn't to say current translations are necessarily wrong merely that current translations are based on later languages. It is grossly complicated by the fact that Ancient Language and the pidgin languages existed concurrently for twelve centuries before history even began.

Nomadic men and women divided up responsibilities much they are still divided today, an early form of specialization. But really, who cares about this topic of specialization here? Do you? I don't.

You are assuming. I presented evidence you are wrong. I will now add more evidence you are wrong. The skeletons of men and women found in the Giza cemeteries each showed evidence of hard work. There were only slightly more catastrophic fatal injuries than would be expected. Children also died in significant numbers. These facts are consistent with a different distribution of work than we divide it. It was an entirely different species that was not only in touch with their consciousness but also wiser than we.

Have you read Bill James and sabermetrics?

No, I used to enjoy professional baseball before 1984 but now only enjoy watching children play and pick up games with young adults.

I was a passing fair pitcher but otherwise lacked much talent on the field. I was able to snag line drives if they were close enough though. A lot pitchers never catch anything but pop ups. I could also back up plays reasonably well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There exists no such evidence to support our translations of most words recorded before 2000 BC.

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to the claim I made. Magical thinking is human nature. People want to control their world, to survive disease and war, to have food and water. When they have nothing else or don't know what else to do, they chant, pray, offer sacrifices, and the like. Many still do today.

I presented evidence you are wrong. I will now add more evidence you are wrong. The skeletons of men and women found in the Giza cemeteries each showed evidence of hard work. There were only slightly more catastrophic fatal injuries than would be expected. Children also died in significant numbers. These facts are consistent with a different distribution of work than we divide it.

That's a claim, not evidence, and it doesn't rebut the claim that in human societies, work is divided between men and women in characteristic ways. Why do you want to discuss this topic? I don't, and need a good reason from you to continue. Did you want to discuss specialization in human societies, and if so, why? If your answer is yes and your reason is good, we can go wherever you are heading here, but it seems to me that we're discussing something neither of us has much interest in.

 

[wellwisher]

Specialization reflects left brain thinking. The way the circuitry of the left brain processes data is connected to the differentiation of reality into its many details. It will make us notice the tiny speck in the eye of another. Like in calculus, differentiation finds the slope of a curve at a given point A; unique angle.

The right brain is the opposite in that it is more integral. The circuitry of the right brain process data by trying to integrate it. In calculus, integration finds the area under the same curve from A to B. This is more like a generalists who brings a wide range of specialties, from A to B, under one umbrella; jack of all trades. We; humans, have the capacity to do both, but we are much more left brain orientated, as inferred by the dominance of specialization.

In the symbolism of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life, these two trees appear to be connected to the contrast between the left and right brain data processing; neurons are like little trees. Knowledge of good and evil is about differential thinking and the beginning of specialty behavior; finds the slopes at each point in behavior. Scratching your nose when itchy is good but picking your nose in public is not; unique slopes.

The tree of life is more about natural instinct which allows animals to integrate within their species and within integrated eco-systems. The symbolism of losing the tree of life; taking away, and gaining the tree of knowledge appear to be about the migration of human consciousness, away from the right brain into the left brain; shift from integrated instinct to differential thinking needed for civilization. It appears to have happened, not that long ago, creating an entirely new world view; details of the universe appear or become more noticeable due to the different circuitry.

The potential problem with differential thinking, and its urge to specialization, is that the specialist can lose track of the forest because of the trees. The specialist can see the trees in front of them in great detail. But he or she can become too near sighted, to see how this tree relates to the whole forest; too egocentric.

The generalists, would be more right brained and would be more like an integral thinker. They are like someone who is up on a mountain and can see the entire forest. However, this view is too far away from each tree to see all the details. However, because the generalists can see the whole forest, he/she can see how apparently unrelated things, relative to specialties, are connected. How does quantum physics affect life? Or, what do the trees of knowledge and life have to do with the brain? This is not for specialists to figure out, since neither knows enough about the other. That needs a larger perspective from A to B.

In construction, you have specialty of trades, from laborers, masons, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters, landscapers, interior designers, etc. None can build the house by themselves, but as a team they all contribute via their specialty. But they need a construction foreman, who can sequence and integrate the specialty trades, from A to B, to maximize time and resources.
If you let any specific trade be the foreman; electrician for example, they would think from the POV of their own area of specialty and try to showcase that, at the expense of the integral project, which is the completed building on time and budget. Big Government is never on budget since there are to many company politics egos; differential, and not enough integral thinkers.

Science continues to generate data faster than it can create theory. This is because there is not enough right brain contribution in science ; construction foremen. There are plenty of craftsmen, in all specialty niches of science, but not enough integral thinkers to bring all the data together, from all over science. This would require learning to migrate between the two hemispheres of the brain; go left to let the left circuitry show the important details, and then go right to let the right brain circuitry process this into 3-D theory. That will be the future of humanity and science, allowing all the specialties to sequence better, like in the ancient times. Integral theory, even with less specialty knowledge than today, was able to build the pyramids with hand tools. Some could see the forest; goal, in spite of all the technical difficulties we will see; trees.

Religion is important to this future end, since religion still uses more right brain. For example, God creating the universe is an integral theory; integrates reality from alpha to omega. However since it is right brain, it does no offer enough detail for all the left brainers of science, who are specialist, that focus on the tiniest of details, that the integral God theory, cannot explain. However, it nevertheless is a way to help place our consciousness in the right brain, so one can learn to make use of the integral circuitry of the right brain, to form integral theory. I used this to form a water theory for life and consciousness.Water is a forest variable that integrates all the organic variables; trees, from alpha to omega.

 

[cladking]

Specialization reflects left brain thinking. The way the circuitry of the left brain processes data is connected to the differentiation of reality into its many details. It will make us notice the tiny speck in the eye of another. Like in calculus, differentiation finds the slope of a curve at a given point A; unique angle.

The right brain is the opposite in that it is more integral. The circuitry of the right brain process data by trying to integrate it. In calculus, integration finds the area under the same curve from A to B. This is more like a generalists who brings a wide range of specialties, from A to B, under one umbrella; jack of all trades. We; humans, have the capacity to do both, but we are much more left brain orientated, as inferred by the dominance of specialization.

Interesting observation. I'm going to steal it.

I'm going to appropriate more of the post as well.

In the symbolism of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life, these two trees appear to be connected to the contrast between the left and right brain data processing; neurons are like little trees. Knowledge of good and evil is about differential thinking and the beginning of specialty behavior; finds the slopes at each point in behavior. Scratching your nose when itchy is good but picking your nose in public is not; unique slopes.

The tree of life is more about natural instinct which allows animals to integrate within their species and within integrated eco-systems. The symbolism of losing the tree of life; taking away, and gaining the tree of knowledge appear to be about the migration of human consciousness, away from the right brain into the left brain; shift from integrated instinct to differential thinking needed for civilization. It appears to have happened, not that long ago, creating an entirely new world view; details of the universe appear or become more noticeable due to the different circuitry.

The original Tree of Life was literal and the term was representative. It was only after babel that the words were confused. The trees are all dead.

Thanks for the post.

 

[shunyadragon]

And then, of course, moralistic evolutionists would encourage "society" to feel sorry for the mentally ill who maimed or killed others. And when and if they can, blame law enforcement for hurting the mentally ill who got out of control. Etc.

No moralistic evolutionists (which do not exist) would not encourage :society to feel sorry for the mentally ill who maimed others. And when and if they can, blame law enforcement for hurting the mentally ill who got out of control. Etc.

 

[cladking]

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to the claim I made. Magical thinking is human nature. People want to control their world, to survive disease and war, to have food and water. When they have nothing else or don't know what else to do, they chant, pray, offer sacrifices, and the like. Many still do today.

Our species homo omnisciencis has no choice but superstition. We are superstitious by nature. It is agriculture that keeps us alive and not intelligence that doesn't even exist or knowledge which tends to be held as beliefs as well.

If there were two adjacent tribes in ancient times and one was superstitious and the other was not the superstitious one would be extinct not in generations or a few years but rather a few seasons. No homo sapien was superstitious and the lacked the infrastructure to hold beliefs. They had no words to think up or hold beliefs and lacked both the words "think" and "belief". Their brains worked differently than ours. they thought four dimensionally like all consciousness that existed at that time. It wasn't their great knowledge or great science and it certainly was a great natural language that kept them alive. It was the power of four dimensional thought. They didn't know much but they could use all their knowledge all the time.

They had "Words of Power" "Words of Theory" and were thereby able to overcome obstacles. We are omniscience; hear us brag.

 

[wellwisher]

When the brain writes to memory, emotional tags are added to sensory content. Our memory has both feeling tones and sensory content. The added feeling tone, is why our strongest memories have the strongest emotional valence; first born child, graduation, trauma, etc. This memory writing method is how the two hemisphere of the brain connect. The sensory details are more left brain, while the emotional tag is more right brain, with both sides active during memory recall, since both sides become triggered. However, the modern conscious mind stays more left brain; recall the details. Mr Spock would ignore the emotional tag and stay pure left brain instead of drift back and forth.

In current thinking, the break down two sides of the brain is no longer clear cut based on external data collection; brain scan. This ambiguity is due to the way memory is written with tags from both sides of the brain, causing both hemispheres to fire. The difference in circuitry still stands as inferred from within. From outside it is harder to see the difference. You need to internally migrate back and forth to compare how these differ; based on how data is processed.

The sensory content of any given memory can be very diverse; left brain, while the emotional tags are limited in number and tend to be recycled for similar sensory content; right brain integration from A to B. For example, if I ask you to name your favorite ten foods these can be as diverse in sensory details as a fried fisherman's plater, to tacos, to a nice steak, to Singapore noodles, etc.. What they all have in common, is a feeling of enjoyment. The feeling of enjoyment integrates or brings together what appears to be unrelated details, under one umbrella; from A to B.

Jesus, for example, taught us to love one another. This was about right brain thinking via a love tag. This could create a right brain platform, by which one could use the circuitry of the right brain, to integrate realty from A to B. This can allow us to overcome our left brain differences; in slope. This was/is also a good exercise for using the circuitry in both sides of the brain and adding tags to rewrite memory and the future.

 

[cladking]

Nothing to do with the sciences of evolution

It has everything to do with the way our species is evolving today.

 

[cladking]

That's a claim, not evidence, and it doesn't rebut the claim that in human societies, work is divided between men and women in characteristic ways. Why do you want to discuss this topic? I don't, and need a good reason from you to continue. Did you want to discuss specialization in human societies, and if so, why? If your answer is yes and your reason is good, we can go wherever you are heading here, but it seems to me that we're discussing something neither of us has much interest in.

It is not of particular importance to me in this thread however it does highlight the differences between the species of human today and that which existed before the tower of babel. There is precious little evidence that has been found left by homo sapiens so I do think it's relevant. It might be more apropos in another thread.

 

[cladking]

When the brain writes to memory, emotional tags are added to sensory content. Our memory has both feeling tones and sensory content. The added feeling tone, is why our strongest memories have the strongest emotional valence; first born child, graduation, trauma, etc. This memory writing method is how the two hemisphere of the brain connect. The sensory details are more left brain, while the emotional tag is more right brain, with both sides active during memory recall, since both sides become triggered. However, the modern conscious mind stays more left brain; recall the details. Mr Spock would ignore the emotional tag and stay pure left brain instead of drift back and forth.

I agree completely. Where do you get this stuff? Mostly I just think a lot about experiment and watch my own consciousness.

In current thinking, the break down two sides of the brain is no longer clear cut based on external data collection; brain scan. This ambiguity is due to the way memory is written with tags from both sides of the brain, causing both hemispheres to fire. The difference in circuitry still stands as inferred from within. From outside it is harder to see the difference. You need to internally migrate back and forth to compare how these differ; based on how data is processed.

The sensory content of any given memory can be very diverse; left brain, while the emotional tags are limited in number and tend to be recycled for similar sensory content; right brain integration from A to B. For example, if I ask you to name your favorite ten foods these can be as diverse in sensory details as a fried fisherman's plater, to tacos, to a nice steak, to Singapore noodles, etc.. What they all have in common, is a feeling of enjoyment. The feeling of enjoyment integrates or brings together what appears to be unrelated details, under one umbrella; from A to B.

Jesus, for example, taught us to love one another. This was about right brain thinking via a love tag. This could create a right brain platform, by which one could use the circuitry of the right brain, to integrate realty from A to B. This can allow us to overcome our left brain differences; in slope. This was/is also a good exercise for using the circuitry in both sides of the brain and adding tags to rewrite memory and the future.

I personally no longer think the left/ right brain stuff is of huge importance to the nature of humans but is critically important to understanding the nature of the brain and ourselves. No doubt other animals have divisions of labor like this in the brain and I believe homo sapiens probably did. Of course I base this on my estimation of the way I work and I know I think a little differently than most people and every test shows I'm equally left and right brained. But still I have to hold the receiver to my left ear or I wax poetic and don't get business done.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Our species homo omnisciencis has no choice but superstition.

Fortunately, I'm H. sapiens, which allows me to overcome that. The sapiens part refers to the ability to do better than that.

It is agriculture that keeps us alive and not intelligence

Yet only the sapient species has agriculture.

I agree completely.

You reminded me of when I was an intern working the county hospital. One room had four beds in it, all women. One patient wore black lipstick and black fingernail polish. This was pre-Goth culture, so she was pretty unique back then. Not surprisingly, she was also pretty bizarre in her opinions.

She wasn't my patient, though. Somebody in the next bed was. One day, I came in and they were both in black lipstick and nail polish. Uh-oh, I thought. This is not a good development.

 

[cladking]

Yet only the sapient species has agriculture.

What evidence do you have that we invented it. Even if your opinion is correct that our species invented it then remember other species did it long long before ours. Did they employ intelligence and theory. What did early farmers know about Darwin?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fortunately, I'm H. sapiens, which allows me to overcome that. The sapiens part refers to the ability to do better than that.

Fortunately for me too.

Yet only the sapient species has agriculture.

Most of the work I have seen on the subject puts the invention of agriculture in Homo sapiens at about 10-15 thoussand years ago. Near the recession of the most recent ice age.

You reminded me of when I was an intern working the country hospital. One room had four beds in it, all women. One patient wore black lipstick and black fingernail polish. This was pre-Goth culture, so she was pretty unique back then. Not surprisingly, she was also pretty bizarre in her opinions.

She wasn't my patient, though. Somebody in the next bed was. One day, I came in and they were both in black lipstick and nail polish. Uh-oh, I thought. This is not a good development.

For good or ill, it only takes one and then you have a movement.

 

[cladking]

You reminded me of when I was an intern working the country hospital. One room had four beds in it, all women. One patient wore black lipstick and black fingernail polish. This was pre-Goth culture, so she was pretty unique back then. Not surprisingly, she was also pretty bizarre in her opinions.

She wasn't my patient, though. Somebody in the next bed was. One day, I came in and they were both in black lipstick and nail polish. Uh-oh, I thought. This is not a good development.

Good or not, this is the kind of thinking that will predominate in the future.

Nothing is as it appears and this is what experiment has been showing us for over a century. We are a product of our beliefs and nothing else at all. No matter what color lipstick you put on a pig it still oinks the same and it still can't fly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fortunately, I'm H. sapiens, which allows me to overcome that. The sapiens part refers to the ability to do better than that.

Yet only the sapient species has agriculture.

You reminded me of when I was an intern working the country hospital. One room had four beds in it, all women. One patient wore black lipstick and black fingernail polish. This was pre-Goth culture, so she was pretty unique back then. Not surprisingly, she was also pretty bizarre in her opinions.

She wasn't my patient, though. Somebody in the next bed was. One day, I came in and they were both in black lipstick and nail polish. Uh-oh, I thought. This is not a good development.

I find the invention of agriculture to be a fascinating subject. It was a game changer that altered the evolution of our culture and species. Homo sapiens is an intelligent and observant species. And some observations can lead to experiments and knowledge without a complete understanding of the entire process or divorcing it fully from belief. All it takes is a few people to try something and achieve a measure of success for the effort.

Plant a few seeds in a place and notice that desirable plants will grow from the effort or that feeding a few food animals regularly draws them to the same place repeatedly hoping for more free food.