|
Post by foxilized on Feb 21, 2011 21:59:25 GMT
Don't you agree on the different functions of the left/right brain? Er... ? I was talking about the hypothesis that the human mind is "hardwired" to believe in magic, superstition, spirits, gods, etc. Oh, maybe I misandertood what you meant? When I said the "magic mind" is a part of our nature I was refering to the "irrational/unconscious" mind -wich is related to the right hemisphere of the brain -meanwhile the left atends the "rational/logic". It's purely biologic. It's a part of our nature cause the brain is made that way. Now my personal social commentary is that today we tend to give so much importance to the logic mind is essentially because of our rational-based culture. But truth is each side is 50% of our mind. This lack of equilibrium in our modern society creates desperate cries for attention in the form of "absurd" mysticism and conspiranoias. They are desperate calls, usually undenfendible. Sometimes even shameful programs like Iker Gimenez's appear to fool a poor audience hungry to release their excessively rational minds. But that's not the point. The fact is today the irrational part of the brain is look down in excess. This is totally unhealthy. I don't know what your personal conception of human mind is. Maybe you consider the human brain to be essentially logic and rational? Because as far as I know It's actually accepted the "rational" and the "irrational" are both half-parts of a whole. If you ask me if I believe we are "made" to believe in spirits... I'll say yes. We are made to believe in spirits and we are also made to know they are not real. Both at the same time. OK, we can tell a lot of differences between their "art" and our ancestors art, but I think it's not right to venture a big difference in their minds and state it as a fact. Sometimes we can't even be sure if some sapiens' art is really sapiens' You are right. Not as a fact. We cannot know. We do know our brain is different than theirs, in biological terms. We can see some objective differences on the remains of each culture. From there we can only speculate. My personal speculation of the Neanderthal is a human stronger than the Sapiens in physiological terms, meanwhile the Sapiens was stronger in psychological terms. Neanderthal could endure in the wors hellish climates where Sapiens would die, but Neanderthal's couldn't stand dramatic changes. They were too spezialized, in body and mind. Meanwhile Sapiens was able to endure though changes cause they could manage to invent more sophisticated "explanations" for these changes and accept them. In other words: today Neanderthals aren't present & Sapiens are present. In metaphysics, the "presence" is obtained accepting changes as the only way to survive them. To accept a change, no matter if you dislike it, you must be able to understand the reason why this change happened. If you cannot find a reasonable explanation, you can always invent one that works. If it works, it works. And then you survive. Homo Sapiens was "built" for being able to either rationally or irrationally explain dramatic changes. (Notice that if you read this carefuly you as an atheist surely agree about the origin of religions ).
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 21, 2011 22:41:36 GMT
H. neanderthalensis was significantly more robust than H. sapiens, and therefore better adapted for colder climates but also slower. In addition to their lack of religion...or something climate change, the difference it made to their prey species, and the subsequent competition from H. sapiens could have played an important factor too.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 22, 2011 1:43:41 GMT
Assuming a competition, that is. But it's hard for me to see a competition in a world with so many resources and so few human habitants. I'm probably wrong though, maybe they were very territorial and didn't like others to habitate their land no matter if there was hunt enough for both species... Or maybe there wasn't really enough hunt for both species, and ones huntd faster and the others died by hungry... Though these explanations doesn't sound too realistic to me.
About the lack of a religion on Neanderthals, I speculate them having really deep spiritual beliefs -hence the symbolic burials and cave bear totems- totally based on seeing the earth as a mother/womb and the different animals or natural forces as sexual/fecundation energies and so. Actually quite similar to the most primitive spiritual beliefs of Sapiens. And probably also shared by other older human species. It is widely documented that these primal "beliefs" and "symbols" are part of our cognitive genetic inheritance as an species, shared by every culture spawned in every part of the planet. So it may have been shared by older ancestors too, in different, less sophisticated languajes, codes and rituals.
Less sophisticated mean less structured than ours, since our religions are roughly a list of mystic beliefs, moral concepts and behaviour rules to learn through reason and understand through reason, and support trhough faith. The more strucurated the more reason/logic it asks for. I imagine more primitive spirituals to be not as a religion to learn through reason, but a part of the daily life, a way of perceiving the world around. Experiencing the spiritual that way, no books or words are needed. No priests to explain what the beliefs are are needed cause you do know about it first hand every day. A complex languaje is less necessary.
Imagine religion's purpose is achieve a mystical extasy of complete-connection-with-god-and-the-whole-universe-as-one-and-you-being-one-with-all-of-it wich we would call "being drunk". Naeanderthals were born "being drunk". They are all the time. Therefore they don't need alcoholic drinks, nor either bars, nor either bartenders. That is they don't need a religion. Now, Homo Sapiens are born sober. Therefore they do need some persons dedicated to make alcoholic drinks, places to go and drink it and also persons to serve it and also explain its effects. Now that is a religion.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 22, 2011 1:49:59 GMT
Assuming a competition, that is. But it's hard for me to see a competition in a world with so many resources and so few human habitants. You're kidding, right? It's been bad enough over all these thousands of years with just ONE species!
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 22, 2011 3:06:45 GMT
Assuming a competition, that is. But it's hard for me to see a competition in a world with so many resources and so few human habitants. I'm probably wrong though, maybe they were very territorial and didn't like others to habitate their land no matter if there was hunt enough for both species... Or maybe there wasn't really enough hunt for both species, and ones huntd faster and the others died by hungry... Though these explanations doesn't sound too realistic to me. About the lack of a religion on Neanderthals, I speculate them having really deep spiritual beliefs -hence the symbolic burials and cave bear totems- totally based on seeing the earth as a mother/womb and the different animals or natural forces as sexual/fecundation energies and so. Actually quite similar to the most primitive spiritual beliefs of Sapiens. And probably also shared by other older human species. It is widely documented that these primal "beliefs" and "symbols" are part of our cognitive genetic inheritance as an species, shared by every culture spawned in every part of the planet. So it may have been shared by older ancestors too, in different, less sophisticated languajes, codes and rituals. Less sophisticated mean less structured than ours, since our religions are roughly a list of mystic beliefs, moral concepts and behaviour rules to learn through reason and understand through reason, and support trhough faith. The more strucurated the more reason/logic it asks for. I imagine more primitive spirituals to be not as a religion to learn through reason, but a part of the daily life, a way of perceiving the world around. Experiencing the spiritual that way, no books or words are needed. No priests to explain what the beliefs are are needed cause you do know about it first hand every day. A complex languaje is less necessary. Imagine religion's purpose is achieve a mystical extasy of complete-connection-with-god-and-the-whole-universe-as-one-and-you-being-one-with-all-of-it wich we would call "being drunk". Naeanderthals were born "being drunk". They are all the time. Therefore they don't need alcoholic drinks, nor either bars, nor either bartenders. That is they don't need a religion. Now, Homo Sapiens are born sober. Therefore they do need some persons dedicated to make alcoholic drinks, places to go and drink it and also persons to serve it and also explain its effects. Now that is a religion. ;D This explains a lot. Your religion is drinking which helps you figure out that Neanderthals are born drunk, therefore they don't need to get drunk. And you need people to help you get drunk, and explain how it effects you, and who serve as your priest in a special place like a church. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Permiantriassic on Feb 22, 2011 3:56:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 22, 2011 9:15:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 22, 2011 16:01:38 GMT
Assuming a competition, that is. But it's hard for me to see a competition in a world with so many resources and so few human habitants. You're kidding, right? It's been bad enough over all these thousands of years with just ONE species! You might be right. But I am unsure... is it easier to kill a whole human species rather than go and hunt animals for your own? It is widely documented that these primal "beliefs" and "symbols" are part of our cognitive genetic inheritance as an species Cognitive genetic inheritance? widely documented? You are trolling me ;D Oh, come on, go and read something you iliterate freak!! www.iloveulove.com/psychology/jung/jungarchetypes.htmwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1938606books.google.es/books?id=pxQjKEMB1EsC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22primordial+image%22+jung&source=bl&ots=JZHcmZjo-l&sig=bRHlBGX9epjM7g6hGtdEejihf48&hl=es&ei=PNxjTaODDIaw8QOPjtDxCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22primordial%20image%22%20jung&f=falsewebcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YGwhNfFLL44J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype+%22Jung+treated+the+archetypes+as+psychological+organs,+analogous+to+physical+ones+in+that+both+are+morphological+constructs+that+arose+through+evolution%22&cd=1&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es&source=www.google.es (of course I'm kidding, you have probably read more books than I would do in a million years) Whatever. First time the American Indians were given the communion by the spanish christians, they went and told the priest: "Sir, your drug doesn't work". ;D (After that of course the christians had to kill'em all ) Assuming a competition, that is. But it's hard for me to see a competition in a world with so many resources and so few human habitants. I'm probably wrong though, maybe they were very territorial and didn't like others to habitate their land no matter if there was hunt enough for both species... Or maybe there wasn't really enough hunt for both species, and ones huntd faster and the others died by hungry... Though these explanations doesn't sound too realistic to me. About the lack of a religion on Neanderthals, I speculate them having really deep spiritual beliefs -hence the symbolic burials and cave bear totems- totally based on seeing the earth as a mother/womb and the different animals or natural forces as sexual/fecundation energies and so. Actually quite similar to the most primitive spiritual beliefs of Sapiens. And probably also shared by other older human species. It is widely documented that these primal "beliefs" and "symbols" are part of our cognitive genetic inheritance as an species, shared by every culture spawned in every part of the planet. So it may have been shared by older ancestors too, in different, less sophisticated languajes, codes and rituals. Less sophisticated mean less structured than ours, since our religions are roughly a list of mystic beliefs, moral concepts and behaviour rules to learn through reason and understand through reason, and support trhough faith. The more strucurated the more reason/logic it asks for. I imagine more primitive spirituals to be not as a religion to learn through reason, but a part of the daily life, a way of perceiving the world around. Experiencing the spiritual that way, no books or words are needed. No priests to explain what the beliefs are are needed cause you do know about it first hand every day. A complex languaje is less necessary. Imagine religion's purpose is achieve a mystical extasy of complete-connection-with-god-and-the-whole-universe-as-one-and-you-being-one-with-all-of-it wich we would call "being drunk". Naeanderthals were born "being drunk". They are all the time. Therefore they don't need alcoholic drinks, nor either bars, nor either bartenders. That is they don't need a religion. Now, Homo Sapiens are born sober. Therefore they do need some persons dedicated to make alcoholic drinks, places to go and drink it and also persons to serve it and also explain its effects. Now that is a religion. ;D This explains a lot. Your religion is drinking which helps you figure out that Neanderthals are born drunk, therefore they don't need to get drunk. And you need people to help you get drunk, and explain how it effects you, and who serve as your priest in a special place like a church. ;D Wanna join us, don't you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 22, 2011 16:32:26 GMT
Pretty interesting. If what they claim was true (Sapiens learning art from Neanderthals) it totally fits with my theory, of Neanderthals being born "drunk" and Sapiens being born "sober". Sapiens need to elaborate a more perdurable artwork to not forget the messages on it. Meanwhile Neanderthals didn't need perdurable artworks, but practical and "for the present moment" instead simply cause they had those feelings all the time -no need to remember, they only needed to celebrate-. In the end the perdurable artwork of the Sapiens -wich to be created needed to elaborate a sophistication- became a survival advantage of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 22, 2011 17:04:08 GMT
Pretty interesting. If what they claim was true (Sapiens learning art from Neanderthals) ... Well, that seems to be the belief of one researcher who didn't take part in the study.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 22, 2011 17:11:34 GMT
You're kidding, right? It's been bad enough over all these thousands of years with just ONE species! You might be right. But I am unsure... is it easier to kill a whole human species rather than go and hunt animals for your own? I was being flippant, but it was probably a combination of factors - climate change, competition from H. sapiens, and interbreeding with H. sapiens that led to their eventual demise. According to me, a puffed-up absolute non-expert. ;D Wasn't it established last year that part of the genome of some Eurasians is (probably) from H. neanderthalensis? And I know we're not allowed to make fun, but... Somebody call The Doctor!
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 22, 2011 19:01:31 GMT
I was refering to the "irrational/unconscious" mind -wich is related to the right hemisphere of the brain -meanwhile the left atends the "rational/logic" Beware of popular science simplifications and exagerations. It's not irrational vs rational or conscious vs unconscious brain. Some brain functions are quite lateralized, some don't. A lot of emotional stuff is done by both hemispheres. I'm not an expert of this matter, of course. You could check this: williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htmAnyway, having a right "emotional" or "unconscious" hemisphere doesn't imply believen in magic,alien visitors or whatever. Essentially? No. The brain is a super-complex organ with lots of functions. The "rational mind" is probably a small subset. I don't understand you, human. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 23, 2011 4:58:39 GMT
Pretty interesting. If what they claim was true (Sapiens learning art from Neanderthals) it totally fits with my theory, of Neanderthals being born "drunk" and Sapiens being born "sober". Sapiens need to elaborate a more perdurable artwork to not forget the messages on it. Meanwhile Neanderthals didn't need perdurable artworks, but practical and "for the present moment" instead simply cause they had those feelings all the time -no need to remember, they only needed to celebrate-. In the end the perdurable artwork of the Sapiens -wich to be created needed to elaborate a sophistication- became a survival advantage of some sort. You really need to go to rehab before it's too late!
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 23, 2011 5:15:01 GMT
Don't you agree on the different functions of the left/right brain? Er... ? I was talking about the hypothesis that the human mind is "hardwired" to believe in magic, superstition, spirits, gods, etc. Then my brain must have skipped that particular step in the production line . Seriously, I've about had it with this alien/spirit/mythology/whatever s**t. I know some of you belive in it, and I respect that it's your belief, but personally I think it's utter crap thought of to drum up money.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 23, 2011 9:09:12 GMT
I was refering to the "irrational/unconscious" mind -wich is related to the right hemisphere of the brain -meanwhile the left atends the "rational/logic" Beware of popular science simplifications and exagerations. It's not irrational vs rational or conscious vs unconscious brain. Some brain functions are quite lateralized, some don't. A lot of emotional stuff is done by both hemispheres. I'm not an expert of this matter, of course. You could check this: williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htmAnyway, having a right "emotional" or "unconscious" hemisphere doesn't imply believen in magic,alien visitors or whatever. I don't understand you, human. ;D Yeah I am surely exposing it quite badly, but I never said "left VERSUS right" since it doesn't work that way. It's not like each part if fighting the other at all. It's more a sort of cooperation. As you say, some functions are quite independent and others aren't so. It's always a sort of "ying-yang" where they both combine in equilibrium. I also agree having a unconscious doesn't imply believing in aliens or ghosts or whatever with the rational mind. That is not necessary and it's actually just a matter of personal choices. What I meant is for the unconscious, these are "real". As Santa Claus and Batman are also "real" for the unconscious. For the rational mind they can either be real or not, depending on what you choose to believe. But fact that you rationally choose to believe Santa Claus is not real doesn't mean uncosciously you won't continue being emotionally moved by the Santa Claus image. In other example, you choose to believe Batman is not real but still you want to go to a Batman movie and have feelings over the character. This is the "magic" of fiction: you know it's not real, but in some level of your mind it is, and even though you never rationally forget it's fiction all the time, it still works as it is real in the sense that it provocates a strong reaction on the receptor. Back to the Neanderthal/Sapiens topic: I think that the explanation we give of the world is actually pretty important, for us as individuals and also as a species. We have a personal explanation of the world, and then we have a cultural explanation of the world. From that explanation (cognitive perception of reality) we are able to stand on the world, to accept it and to react to it. We have a basis where we can survive. If we don't understand the world, then we feel a fear so strong that it destroys us. So, the explanation is main for (psichological and physical) survival. Primitive humans had a pretty different explanation of reality simply cause they didn't know the rational facts that we have discovered throgh history. That is why, thanks to the knowledge of culture given, today we have an explanation of the world wich is extremely rational (that is what we rationally choose to believe that is real and what is not). But in ancient times, since people didn't know about physical laws or scientifical facts, their explanation had to be, necessarily, pretty irrational. Gods, spirits, and the like where the explanations they had at hand to understand and accept what happened on their enviroment and inside them. As far as we learn facts, our explanation of the world mutates. That is a huge advantage, that capacity to mutate the explanation of reality, and also the capacity to writte books to communicate that new explanation to others. That's culture. And that's what I believe saved our species from extinction on the prehistoric past. I guess I have cleared myself up, already... I really don't want to give a class on anything, I just expose what I believe with the best words I can... I've always loved psychology but I'm less than amateur on it. Honestly, there is a long time since I stopped feeling afraid of this kind of mystic stories of gods, ghosts, aliens and stuff. I confess there was a time when I really felt a strong negative reaction to all this and then I understood the rejection was caused because I was truly afraid of being fooled. Also I was afraid of it being true and blow my mind or something. Well, today I have confronted that fear and I am pretty tolerant with them cause I know they can do me no harm. The true message is between the lines. These kind of things aren't really talking literally, it's all about persons trying to communicate messages through a sort of surrealistic languaje. If you learn how to translate it, you quickly discover what is it all about. You really need to go to rehab before it's too late! Man, honestly, are you sure you want to continue talking to me that way?
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 23, 2011 17:54:31 GMT
What I meant is for the unconscious, these are "real". As Santa Claus and Batman are also "real" for the unconscious. I don't think that Batman is "real for my inconscious"... but how can I know? ;D Wait... how can you know? I can't choose that sort of things. I can't say "now I'm going to believe in Batman". I think I'm definitely unable to do so. But in general I don't feel emotionally moved by imaginary beings at all. Perhaps it's true for some people. But not me and other people. Also I'd need some evidence of that unconscious emotional moving. And you are talking about the whole humanity... and even about the mind of our extinct relatives. It's happening again: almost every line I read from you makes me skeptically raise my eyebrows
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 21:25:14 GMT
I understand what Fox means, even if I may not be able to articulate it as well as he does. One would have to be exceptionally hidebound in literal comprehension to continually seek to refute it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 21:28:31 GMT
One would have to be exceptionally hidebound in literal comprehension to continually seek to refute it, I think. I'm enjoying Paleofreak's responses, even though I'd appreciate a response to what I said re Neanderthals. Hint hint.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 21:39:21 GMT
I'm enjoying Paleofreak's responses... You would.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 23, 2011 21:44:14 GMT
|
|