A loose arguement regarding our course of evolution

[Praxis101]

Premise: one seeks to improve oneself and one's well-being by whatever means he sees fit and most efficient.

- A large portion of our brain processes – our mental ability – is left unconscious, hidden from our direct access. We can consciously observe trends and tendencies, our own habits and instincts, and attempt to construct a model for what seems to be taking place in our unconscious mind. Through much thought and effort, we could perhaps even better harness our unconscious – maybe by means of trusting our instinct during certain situations, or simply being more aware of our capabilities.

- We could look at the phrase "improving oneself" in a variety of ways, and each individual may interpret this process differently. Let’s use Maslow's heirarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow) as a very general model for this: approaching self actualization essentially involves self awareness and seeking to improve and unlock every bit of potential, as I have understood it.

- We can first-hand experience the power that our unconscious holds: making huge intuitional processes in a fraction of a second. There are even ways – meditation, certain drugs, reading & reflection, thought, and perhaps even dreams – that can open a window into some of this unconscious thought, and sometimes even unlock something new within our mind.

- One of the most efficient means for self-improvement and self-actualization, then, could be gradually uncovering more of this unconscious intuition. Upon further inspection, it seems that humanity’s most recent leaps in evolution are through consciousness; even further: our consciousness and technology have evolved to the point where they each could directly affect our evolution.

- Perhaps an individual could focus effort, then, at discovering and growing his own window of consciousness. It seems reasonable to me that an individual could make significant leaps in consciousness – even in one short human life span. Living to push evolution in the direction that seems most fit -


I'm not quite as good at constructing formal, logical arguements as others on this forum, and I may have made an irrational jump or two - if so, please discuss /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Your thoughts?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems reasonable to me that an individual could make significant leaps in consciousness – even in one short human life span. Living to push evolution in the direction that seems most fit -

[/ QUOTE ]

How would anything you do in this lifetime get passed on to the next generation?
Sounds Lamarkian, but ..?

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems reasonable to me that an individual could make significant leaps in consciousness – even in one short human life span. Living to push evolution in the direction that seems most fit -

[/ QUOTE ]

How would anything you do in this lifetime get passed on to the next generation?
Sounds Lamarkian, but ..?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]memes?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems reasonable to me that an individual could make significant leaps in consciousness – even in one short human life span. Living to push evolution in the direction that seems most fit -

[/ QUOTE ]

How would anything you do in this lifetime get passed on to the next generation?
Sounds Lamarkian, but ..?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
memes?

[/ QUOTE ]

We can evolve.
Memes can evolve( accepting a dawkinsian view of them).
I was trying to find out if the OP thought his children would acquire this expanded consciousness through evolutionary means, not cultural. I should have been clearer.

luckyme

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems reasonable to me that an individual could make significant leaps in consciousness – even in one short human life span. Living to push evolution in the direction that seems most fit -

[/ QUOTE ]

How would anything you do in this lifetime get passed on to the next generation?
Sounds Lamarkian, but ..?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
memes?

[/ QUOTE ]

We can evolve.
Memes can evolve( accepting a dawkinsian view of them).
I was trying to find out if the OP thought his children would acquire this expanded consciousness through evolutionary means, not cultural. I should have been clearer.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

They may or may not acquire a higher aptitude for experiencing a more conscious mind, and may not experience any benefit from my endeavors whatsoever - genetically. I doubt there is much scientific work in this area yet, but I'd be delighted to explore some /images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, the ability to share experience could have value for future generations.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]

However, the ability to share experience could have value for future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first example of this that pops into my mind is Nietzsche.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
They may or may not acquire a higher aptitude for experiencing a more conscious mind, and may not experience any benefit from my endeavors whatsoever - genetically. I doubt there is much scientific work in this area yet, but I'd be delighted to explore some

However, the ability to share experience could have value for future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did your usage of 'evolution' fit into this? Essentially, the genetic material we'll pass on is set pre-birth.

Did you just mean, "I could expand the use of my mind and then teach others to do the same" or ?

luckyme

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may or may not acquire a higher aptitude for experiencing a more conscious mind, and may not experience any benefit from my endeavors whatsoever - genetically. I doubt there is much scientific work in this area yet, but I'd be delighted to explore some

However, the ability to share experience could have value for future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did your usage of 'evolution' fit into this? Essentially, the genetic material we'll pass on is set pre-birth.

Did you just mean, "I could expand the use of my mind and then teach others to do the same" or ?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suppose I'm using the term very broadly, but social, societal, and cultural evolution all seem to work. I'm not very familiar with the details in the functioning of evolution, but the word seems to work in my mind.

Conscious progression seems to be a developmental process that can be passed on in some form.

[madnak]

It can't be passed on physically. This was a common idea a long time ago, and various experiments were done to indicate that nothing that occurs during the lifetime of an organism affects its genetic information. Our understanding of how the transmission of the genome works has solidified that.

If I work out a lot, that won't make my children any stronger. Therefore, what you're arguing is a process of reinement of environmental factors, and I don't think that can be stable. Memes are neat, of course, but your own children might not even be the best vector for them. And while this might increase the skill at tapping the innate ability, that innate ability itself would remain unchanged.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a common idea a long time ago, and various experiments were done to indicate that nothing that occurs during the lifetime of an organism affects its genetic information.

[/ QUOTE ]



That's changing. (https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument)

[madnak]

Whoa. Well, never mind then.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was a common idea a long time ago, and various experiments were done to indicate that nothing that occurs during the lifetime of an organism affects its genetic information.

[/ QUOTE ]



That's changing. (https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some are tossing about Lamarkian with those results, but is it actually the traits of the current current body that is being recursively fed into the genetic material?

It seems related to 'stress' affecting it, but to use a simple example, do bodybuilder adults that were 90lb weaklings give birth to Arnolds?
( in this case it'd be brain-builders).

It's too technical for me, but I didn't get that it operated in that sense. ??

luckyme

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was a common idea a long time ago, and various experiments were done to indicate that nothing that occurs during the lifetime of an organism affects its genetic information.

[/ QUOTE ]



That's changing. (https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some are tossing about Lamarkian with those results, but is it actually the traits of the current current body that is being recursively fed into the genetic material?

It seems related to 'stress' affecting it, but to use a simple example, do bodybuilder adults that were 90lb weaklings give birth to Arnolds?
( in this case it'd be brain-builders).

It's too technical for me, but I didn't get that it operated in that sense. ??

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's why they said Lamarck had a good idea but bad examples.

I remember reading that agouti study and thinking that it would be huge in evolutionary thought. It seems to have got a lot more traction in disease stuff like cancer.

Depends on what traits you are talking about. And of course it's only been demonstrated for certain traits (it's pretty new). The bodybuilding example may not be relevant to epigenetics (but it may - silence myostatin, for instance, due to methylation and then that gets passed down - I think this is more plausible than other examples).

But the idea is that you develop certain traits because of the methylation, histone changes, etc. to the genetic material and that's what is passed down. So things you develop during your life can get passed down without changes to the DNA code.
Some may be observable traits you exhibit, others may be absent in you but exhibited in offspring.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But the idea is that you develop certain traits because of the methylation, histone changes, etc. to the genetic material and that's what is passed down. So things you develop during your life can get passed down without changes to the DNA code.
Some may be observable traits you exhibit, others may be absent in you but exhibited in offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have been covered in the article, but won't feedback mechanisms such as this speed up evolutionary timeframes to an amazing degree ( at least since that ability appeared in the loop).

Once lifeforms have it, even a fairly simple version, vavooooooom. ??

luckyme

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the idea is that you develop certain traits because of the methylation, histone changes, etc. to the genetic material and that's what is passed down. So things you develop during your life can get passed down without changes to the DNA code.
Some may be observable traits you exhibit, others may be absent in you but exhibited in offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have been covered in the article, but won't feedback mechanisms such as this speed up evolutionary timeframes to an amazing degree ( at least since that ability appeared in the loop).

Once lifeforms have it, even a fairly simple version, vavooooooom. ??

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's specific to certain genes or traits AFAIK. It's unknown how much of the genome these changes could effect.

Although it would be faster and more efficient than changing the code. Lineages can react to there environment in a quick and directed way.