The years from 1957 to 1962 were a golden age of science fiction, as well as paranoia and exhilaration on a cosmic scale. The future was still the future back then, some of us could dream of farms on the moon and heroically finned rockets blasting off from alien landscapes. Others worried about Russian moon bases.
I find it amusing when people talk about evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments.
It all depends on our perspective, from when we look in time and the time span we use.
If we look exclusively from our vantage point in time, and at a human time span, then - yes - it may appear that some species were evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments, and whichever species are alive today “made it”. But that is obviously a very myopic view, and not aligned with the vast time spans of evolution.
All species are born and die, this earth was born and will die, this universe was born and will die (heat death or big crunch). So in that sense, all species - including humans - are evolutionary “dead ends”.
Or we can say that all species are wonderful and awe-inspiring expressions of the amazing creativity of the Earth and this universe.
Can We Make a Star on Earth? is another great BBC Horizon documentary, this one hosted by the always excellent Brian Cox.
This segment is especially interesting, highlighting our need to use our current petroleum-based energy to develop new energy sources, including fusion. If we don’t speed up our efforts dramatically, it will be too late before we know it. If we apply a great deal of human and energy resources now, we can create a smoother transition for ourselves.
This is also a reminder of why the global warming debate is a sidetrack. First, because there is universal agreement among climate scientists that (a) significant climate change is happening and (b) it is caused by human activity. (The ones sowing the seeds of confusion are not climatologists, and the campaign to create confusion is fueled by the petroleum industry, taking a cue from the tobacco industry.)
More importantly, fossil fuel is running out and we need to put a great deal into the transition right now. We can’t afford to wait, partly since we need the current petroleum resources to fuel the transition, and partly because we don’t know how much oil is left. We have to act on the worst case scenario. The consequences of making a timing mistake are too great.
Cooking is something we all take for granted but a new theory suggests that if we had not learned to cook food, not only would we still look like chimps but, like them, we would also be compelled to spend most of the day chewing…..
Cooking food breaks down its cells, meaning that our stomachs need to do less work to liberate the nutrients our bodies need. This, says Wheeler, “freed up energy which could then be used to power a larger brain. The increase in brain-size mirrors the reduction in the size of the gut.” Significantly Wheeler and Aiello found that the reduction in the size of our digestive system was exactly the same amount that our brains grew by - 20%. Professor Stephen Secor at the University of Alabama found that not only does cooked food release more energy, but the body uses less energy in digesting it. As a consequence, more time was available for social structure to develop.
- from BBC, Learning to Cook Produced Bigger Brains
Changing food habits is a good example of how we shape our own evolution.
Our evolved biology makes our behavior and culture possible. Our behavior and culture changes, and this allows us to make use of our evolved potential in new ways. Both of these changes our selection pressures. Which in turn changes us biologically as a species. And this changes what is possible for us as individuals and as a culture.
We have evolved so it is possible for us to use tools and cook food. Cooking food allows us to make better use of food nutrients, which in turn allows us to make different and new use of our evolved potential. Both of these changes our circumstances and selection pressures, so different characteristics are selected for. This changes us biologically as a species. And this opens new options for us as a species and a culture.
Nowadays, our own culture is perhaps the most significant source of our own evolutionary change, as it has been for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Through culture, we change our social and ecological environments, which in turn changes the selection pressures, which in turn changes who we are.
For a good introduction to what sets humans apart from other animals, you can’t do much better than Alan Alda’s three-part series The Human Spark.
It is easy to think that since the lives of humans are so different from the lives of other animals, there must be big differences in how we are put together.
But is that the case? Are humans very different from other animals? No. We share almost everything with at least some, and often many, other species.
It is the small differences - often in degree - that sets us apart. As we know from the butterfly effect, in a complex system, small differences in the initial conditions can lead to big differences in how it all unfolds over time. In this case, small differences in biology leads to big differences in how we live our lives.
It is these small differences that leads to what we see as uniquely human such as relatively advanced culture, technology, and social organization.
The human brain is a big believer in equality — and a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, has become the first to gather the images to prove it.
Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s.
- from Science Daily
From an evolutionary perspective, it is not surprising that we may be predisposed for justice. We are social animals, and in many cases, justice benefits the group as a whole.
Our biology makes everything we know possible: metabolism, walking, digesting, feeling, thinking, anger, joy, sadness, culture, technology, imagination, creativity, compassion, ethics, a sense of meaning, and anything that is part of our individual and collective lives.
Some of it is shared among all Earth life. Much of it is shared among all animals. A great deal of shared among all mammals. Even more is shared among all humans. And some is differently emphasized among humans.
By observing brain cancer patients before and after brain surgery, researchers in Italy have found that damage to the posterior part of the brain, specifically in an area called the parietal cortex, can increase patients’ feelings of “self transcendence,” or feeling at one with the universe. The parietal cortex is the region that is is usually involved in maintaining a sense of self, for example by helping you keep track of your body parts. It has also been linked to prayer and meditation.
- Discover Magazine blog
Its a rich and interesting field, finding physiological correlates to whatever goes under the “spiritual” umbrella: A sense of awe, gratitude, compassion. A widened sense of “us”. A stronger and more mature sense of ethics. A reduced sense of boundaries, or recognition of boundaries as imagined. Effects of meditation or prayer practice, such as a more stable attention, improved self-regulation, and recognition of thoughts as thoughts. States of various kinds. And much more. Each of these are most likely related to short- and long-term changes in different and specific brain regions, and also the endocrine system, immune system, cellular function, and so on.
Daniel Johnson makes remarkably accurate Olympic medal predictions. But he doesn’t look at individual athletes or their events. The Colorado College economics professor considers just a handful of economic variables to come up with his prognostications.
The result: Over the past five Olympics, from the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney through the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, Johnson’s model demonstrated 94% accuracy between predicted and actual national medal counts. For gold medal wins, the correlation is 87%.
His forecast model predicts a country’s Olympic performance using per-capita income (the economic output per person), the nation’s population, its political structure, its climate and the home-field advantage for hosting the Games or living nearby. “It’s just pure economics,” Johnson says. “I know nothing about the athletes. And even if I did, I didn’t include it.”
- Forbes, see also Daniel Johnson’s own website
Which countries tend to do best in the Winter Olympics? The ones with large populations, cold winters, and wealth. Nothing surprising there.
And yet, the strength of these connections and the accuracy of Johnson’s predictions is impressive. And it is perhaps surprising that this accuracy is achieved free from any data on the athletes.
This hints at a revolution still in its infancy, and one with with great promise: Uncover surprising, far from intuitive and yet important connections, using statistics, vasts amount of date, and modest computer power.
The Work is quite similar to cognitive therapy, and also similar to forms of inquiry found in Buddhist and Advaita traditions.
There is a great deal of research on cognitive therapy, of course. And also on the meditation aspects of Buddhism, although perhaps less on Buddhist and Adveita forms of inquiry. And there is nearly or actually no esearch on The Work. A quick Google Scholar search didn’t turn up much, apart from a general overview of The Work.
Why do research on The Work? There are many reasons. It would make it interesting to more therapists. It would gain sufficient support so it can be included in interventions, including large scale interventions to increase health and well-being and prevent illness. It would give it a foothold in the academic world, opening up for further research into The Work and similar approaches.
I have been fascinated by SETI since I was a kid. Finding another civilization in the universe will be one of the most significant discoveries in the history of humanity.
More importantly, simply reflecting on it - which SETI invites us to - helps us see ourselves more in perspective.
The appendix is shown to support the immune system, in contrast to the previous view of it having no function at all. And what about junk DNA, do we know it doesn’t have a function?
Western science has had a tendency to assume that if we don’t know its function, it must not have one. It is obviously a silly assumption.
So the question then is, where and how do I do the same? Where do I assume that if I don’t know the function of something, it must not have one?
Big Integrity is the art and science of coming into right relationship with Reality and supporting others in doing the same. It can be spoken of as “getting right with God,” but religious language is not necessary and may in some circles be counterproductive, given the fact that so many people still have trivial, unnatural views of the divine. (Indeed, as I suggest here, atheist scientists such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are playing traditionally prophetic roles in this process when they speak on behalf of reality.) Thus, I prefer thinking of Big Integrity simply as “being in right relationship with Reality”—both objective reality: the actual, physical Universe that dozens of scientific disciplines help us understand, and subjective reality: the inner realm of meaning, values, and interpretation that has historically been the focus of religion, psychology, and spirituality.
In reality, Darwin’s loss of faith was, as he recognised, gradual and complex. The reasons were not new – suffering always has been and always will be most serious challenge to Christianity – but they were newly focused. Plenty of Darwin’s scientific contemporaries….. could accommodate their Christian beliefs with the new theory. Indeed, as historian James Moore has remarked “with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution.”
But Darwin, brought up on William Paley’s harmonious, self-satisfied vision of creation, could not.
Depression brings attention to a particular topic while reducing distractions, allowing it to be examined and processed more thoroughly. And that investigation can help us function better in daily life.
The idea is of course not new, and it goes well beyond just depression.
When I explore for myself, I find that any hangups, any reactivity, is a glue for attention. It brings attention to the apparent topic of the hangup, and also to the hangup itself.
Whenever there is friction between shoulds and is/may be, there is a knot. A hangup. A tantrum, as Byron Katie calls it.
The press release makes some good points, and it is an interesting exploration. Why do we sometimes resist a more rational view? And what can be done about it when we notice it in ourselves, or encounter it in others?
It is also interesting to note that the author appears to mix in his own beliefs which muddles the logic slightly.
Davis laments a modern world in which more people believe in ESP, ghosts, and angels than in evolution. Superstition and religion get particularly critical treatment, although he argues that religion, itself, is not the problem but “an inevitable by-product of how our minds misperform.
It is not quite ESP, ghost and angels versus science and evolution. It is about how we relate, not what we relate to.
It is perfectly possible to be curious about ESP, ghost, UFOs and other mysterious phenomena, and take a pragmatic and scientific approach to it. We can study it through science and be quite receptive and open to whatever we may find.
And it is also perfectly possible to have a blind and irrational belief in atheism or particular scientific models, pretending those views and models are true when we know that atheism is just another unproven philosophy and any scientific model will be outdated and obsolete at some point in the future. (And that goes for our most basic worldview as well, and our most basic assumptions about life and existence.)
When we mix in our own beliefs as Davis does, it is also easy to be caught up in shadow projections. To get caught up in the “I am right, you are wrong” dynamics and all that comes with it.
And as always, this is a mirror for myself. I see Davis being caught up in his own beliefs, so how am I doing the same? How am I doing the same in relation to him right now? Can I find other specific examples from my own life?
In this case, it is perfectly possible - even likely - that I am horribly unfair and assign views to the author that he does not hold. I haven’t even read his book. I am just using it to make a point.
There is a huge amount of possible relationships between science and spirituality.
The most obvious one in our science-based culture is to explore spirituality through science. For instance, we can explore the effects of different practices. How do they show up in how people experience and live their lives? What bodily changes correlate with practices, regular long-term practice, different states, and a genuine Ground awakening? How does it show up in the structure and activity of the brain, the nervous system, endocrine system, muscles and so on? Also, we can explore the science of spiritual practices on their own terms. What works and how? What are the dynamics and mechanisms behind practices from the different traditions? How similar are the ones that appear quite similar?
We can also explore science through spirituality, especially and most productively from within reality awake to itself. For instance, how do current models and views in science correspond to reality as it appears to a mystic? How can they be rephrased so they are better aligned while still staying true to current science?
Equally interesting is how we can use current stories from science as fodder for practices.
Creation is a movie about Charles Darwin and will be out in the theaters at the end of September.
The trailer highlights the tension between one particular image of evolution, and one particular image of God.
It may seem quaint. I know it does for me, having grown up in a culture where most are lukewarm agnostics, where religion plays very little role in society, and where the few Christians have no problem reconciling their religion with science. (Mostly by telling themselves they belong to different realms.)
Joel sometimes says that enlightenment is retroactive.
One of the many ways of noticing that is through inquiry. Especially when it is done in a wholehearted and heartfelt way.
I take a story as true, and it colors my past. It may even bring up sadness, grief, anger, regret and so on.
I inquire into the story, finding what is more true for me, and the story is liberated from being taken as true.
And here, I find that my images of the past has changed as well. Instead of - for instance - regret over a particular situation, there is now a gentle and heartfelt appreciation.
Often, it is bitter-sweet. I can see how I acted in beliefs back then, creating suffering for myself and others. It is bitter. And yet, in realizing that I was confused and acted on a belief, and now have a little more clarity around it, there is a sweetness, a sincere appreciation of the whole process.
This amazingly complete 47 million year old fossil was revealed to the public today. It was found in Germany in the 80s, wasy aquired by the University of Oslo two years ago, and is a link in the early evolution of primates. (See official site and BBC.)
Exploring our evolutionary past helps us understand who we are today, and this has many practical benefits. Our evolutionary story informs a wide range of fields, including medicine, sociology and psychology. And through the epic of evolution, we can find and a deep sense of connection, belonging and meaning, which in turn influences our views and actions and may even help us survive as a species.
There is also another side to our desire to fill in our past through genealogy, history, archaeology, evolutionary past, cosmology and more. We can use it to give ourselves a false sense that we understand and know who we are as a species and individuals. We can use it to get a sense of having ground under our feet, a base to stand on, stories that helps us solidify and flesh out our identities.
These stories can be used as material to solidify our identity as a species, culture and individual, and also as an object in the world - a me, a doer and an observer.
This is where inquiry can be very helpful. Do I know that any of these stories are really true? Do I know that they define who and what I really am? What happens when I take them as true? Who would I be without those stories? What are the truth in their turnarounds? (The Work.)
So while all of these stories from genealogy, history, evolution and cosmology can be very helpful in a practical sense, and may even help us survive as a species, it is good to notice how we hold these stories, what happens when take them as true, and find what is more true for us -including that we really don’t know.
A good overview on planethunting and why technological civilizations may be rare in the Universe. (One reason: They may not be very long-lived on a cosmic - or even planetary - timescale.)
The search for life in the universe is valueable in itself. At the very least, it is a reminder of how incredibly precious life and this living planet is, and it helps us (mentally) place earth and humanity in a much larger context.
(SETI is also one of many mirror for us, although what I can say about it is just the same as in other posts.)
