Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 31, 2007.
How does a higher state of consciousness help us to reproduce and care for our children?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
By helping us survive.
state of consciousness arose not on purpose, but from the very fact of complex neuro-chemical reactions that humans had to undergo everyday, to the point that consciousness of oneself was a vital point of these reactions.
Example is such: The early satellites/probes sent by humans to space, sent out information back and forth and went according to the trajectory they had been given. Now all that has changed, we have probes like Spirit and Oppurtunity (designed by NASA), these have artificial intelligence in them, these machinese can decide were to go and how to get to the destination based on complex equations of going around obstacles (rocks, sand, holes). Spirit and Oppurtunity are obviously not yet AI, because they do not evolve, they have no such need (not yet) But imagine this, AI machines like Spirit and Opportunity evolving by following pre-set equations which allow change of variables and constants, limits.
Being conscious helped humans to stay alive, by having a purpose ... which they themselves defined as. Going over the limits of pain and instinct. By having curiosity drive them.
Simple, it doesn´t help you reproduce; because the world is overpopulated as it is, why would you want to bring children to an over-populated planet? now don´t be selfish.
Our brain capacity is being crippled by this low state of consciousness we are currently in; we only use 10% of the capacity. That higher state of consciousness is just a wider use of that capacity.
A higher state of consciousness is nothing but being aware of everything you do, say and think. It IS evolution, we humans haven´t evolved in thousands of years, not a bit; have you thought about why?
I think a higher state of consciousness IS the evolution of mankind.
We are born, then we create an ego, then we reach the same state of consciousness as when we were born, and then we die. That "second childhood" that senior adults experiment is the dying of the ego; but not all people experience it the same. Most people fall into a "childlike" state, on which they act very similar to children, they just don´t care. There is a minority of the people who reach the higher state of consciousness on the "second childhood"; it is the real meaning of the concept of "born again" most religions preach with lack of understanding. If you manage to be "born again" in the second childhood, you are blissed with tranquility, and you can teach others how to reach that tranquility we spend our whole life looking for.
Chapter 6 discusses the gene based "life-history theory" I have proposed to explain the racial pattern in brain size, intelligence, and other traits. Evolutionary biologists call it the r-K scale of reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies that rely on high reproductive rates. At the other end are K-strategies that rely on high levels of parental care. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of different species of animals. I have used it to explain the smaller but real differences between the human races.
On this scale, Orientals are more K-selected than Whites, while Whites are more K-selected than Blacks. Highly K-selected women produce fewer eggs (and have bigger brains) than r-selected women. Highly K-selected men invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are "dads" rather than "cads."
Chapter 7 shows that the race differences in reproductive strategies make sense in terms of human
evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.
The more north the people went "Out of Africa," the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person's development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.
Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate hich contrasted with the cooler one of Europe in which Whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands where Orientals evolved.
Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.
As some groups became more conscious of their harsh environments, that helped them to reproduce and care for there children.
I am not talking about consciousness. I am talking about higher consciousness, i.e. enlightenment. What's the evolutionary point of that? You don't need enlightenment to reproduce and raise children.
It help you raise your children in the way nature intended, to fulfill their destiny as God intended. Not the way you were told by society to repress every single energy they manifest in the physical; by doing this, you create a false personality on your children, that they were not born with, you create the personality of your children according to your messed up perception of things.
well, prolongs life for one thing.
Settles the mind of troubles...helps to focus.
In other word, it helps you raise conscious free children instead of society´s robots.
Wisdom Seeker. You are equating enlightment with a childlike state. If that is true, then I can see your point. However, wouldn't that mean then that all children are enlightened? If that were true, then wouldn't it be better to keep our children ignorant, so that they don't have to be reprogrammed later by teaching them Buddhism?
If the vast majority of people are not enlightened, then I see very little use to enlightenment in terms of reproduction and child rearing.
No no, enlighment is the counter-option of our second childlike state when we are older. In a child-like state there is no ego, just as in enlightment; the difference is consciousness, animals can reach the child-like state, in fact, they are in that state always. But other animals could never reach enlightment, because that is a conscient childlike state.
Yes, all children are enlightened the moment they are born, but not when they grow up a little; because you have imposed certain behaviour patterns on them already.
Well, it is not better to keep them ignorant, because you "reprogram" your children without knowing it; if you have an ego, you will impose that to your children, even unconsciously when you laught at some things and get mad at others. They need to create the ego in order to behave in society or in a family environment; what we can do is be conscient about it, and communicate that to them.
The thing is, if they were conscient that it is all in the ego, then they would be able to drop it more easily, and become what they were born to become.
If enlightenment would not exist, Moses, Jesus Christ, Gautam Baddha, Zarathustra, Mohammed; all of them would have never existed and we would be a very primitive society right now.
So, are you saying evolution did not create the ego? And if evolution did create the ego, then why would evolution favor enlightenment over ego?
Evolution favors primative societies. That's why almost all of the history of life on this planet does not involve sophisticated societies. This seems to be direct contrary evidence to the existence of enlightenment as anything but a man made idea.
Off course evolution created ego, or else we could have never become a society. The thing is, after the ego is created, it tends to controll us; most people die and never were able to control their egos.
Enlightment is about not letting the ego control us in order to reach higher truths and understanding. Enlightment is about getting to know your true self, and not act according to what you were told to act by others.
Most people live their entire lifes being controlled by their egos, and this means they behave in the way they were expected to behave by society out of fear. They never get to know themselves, and that is sad.
Picture an imaginary cage around you, which is your ego, this is real; we can get out of the cage if we desire it, it means the path of enlightment; or we can live confortably inside the cage, and never realize we were caged by ourselves. The cage simply is not there the moment you are born, and it vanishes when you reach a certain age. But if it vanishes before you realize this situation, you will be free to do whatever you want, but you will not know what to do, it will be too late.
Enlightment is our other option, it means to drop what society was expecting of you, to get out of the cage when we can do it, in order to get to know your true-self better and do what you were born to do. In other words: live exactly the way you want to live, without lying and hypocresy, being who you truly are is part of the path to enlightment.
I´m not talking about materialistic primitiveness. I´m talking about primitives of spirit, of understanding, of truth.
Care to define this.. "enlightenment" ?
If you mean what i think you mean you can stop asking because it doesnt exist.
Evolution has little control over culture. I think enlightnment is our natural state but culture has created confusion in a mind that has not yet completely adapted to civilization.
Wisdom Seeker is defining enlightenment as being free of societal controls so you can do what you want to do - not what somebody else tells you to do. Defined that way, enlightenment does seem to exist as it is really a relearned childlike state. However, I still don't see how a relearned childlike state gives an advantage in reproduction and child rearing, so I still maintain that enlightenment as defined by Wisdom Seeker is still a fairly useless man-made idea in evolutionary terms.
Separate names with a comma.