How could asceticism have evolved?

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

No one has defined existence and no one knows for sure if the universe had a beginning. We are getting ahead of ourselves here

I think rather that you're getting behind lol.

If we had to justify existence in every thread we'd never be able to talk about anything else.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

I think rather that you're getting behind lol.

If we had to justify existence in every thread we'd never be able to talk about anything else.

Of all my siblings I was definitely the slowest. My babysitter dropped me when I was small, that didn't help

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I would guess the basic of abstraction probably first evolved when planning hunting and then maybe developed though tribal memory, for instance...

"my father said that in times of drought there were great beasts to hunt in a valley a days walk to the setting sun"

That might be describing real things but theres things that the person being told has never experienced. Mathematics as you say probably evolved to deal with some form of early trade.

Hmm I hadn't considered the relationship to memory too much. Good points.

 

[Phr3121]

You should keep up to date, because it's anything but clear. Nor will it ever be clear. The best we have are models. Models do not represent truth they are at best approximations. But for our purposes we can view them as truthful.

"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning"

"Scientists observe supermassive black hole in infant universe"

Not sure what 'black holes' have to do with any of this. Do you know what quantum physics (mechanics) is? How the laws of quantum physics differ from regular physics? Micro (atom) vs. Macro (universe). How Einstein was trying to find a link between both, but failed.

What's a fact? What's a state of living? What is objective reality? What is an interaction? Etc. Do you see where this is going?

No. I don't see where this is going. You can pull out the dictionary and look at the definition of 'fact', 'state of living', 'objective reality', and 'interaction'. You need a clear definition of each before a true debate can be started. Theory of Relativity has already been proven -- E = mc^2. That is clear as crystal...

 

[EyeOfNewt]

Not sure what 'black holes' have to do with any of this. Do you know what quantum physics (mechanics) is? How the laws of quantum physics differ from regular physics? Micro (atom) vs. Macro (universe). How Einstein was trying to find a link between both, but failed.



No. I don't see where this is going. You can pull out the dictionary and look at the definition of 'fact', 'state of living', 'objective reality', and 'interaction'. You need a clear definition of each before a true debate can be started. Theory of Relativity has already been proven -- E = mc^2. That is clear as crystal...

You wouldn't know unless you read the papers and I can tell you didn't.

(From the second paper)
"If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses—it's unrealistic," Simcoe says. "So there must be another way that it formed. And how exactly that happens, nobody knows."

Cliffs: a black hole cannot attain that mass given it was there in the universe's infancy, this leaves two options. It formed in an unexplicable way or there universe is a lot older than we were told. I don't know what else to tell you

Edit: every framework in physics follows a model of some kind and which can be taken to be true to a certain extent. Newton's model is completely inaccurate compared to QFT for example, but it didn't stop NASA from putting satellites into orbit. There's no absolute truth, only the pursuit of more accurate predictions. It depends how far you want to aim. If you only care for vaguely accurate approximations then you build a model that neglects the fine details of whatever is you're trying to model.

 

[Organic Damage]

I don't know if you could necessarily construe any spiritual or philosophical movement as a product of selection. It might be a product of evolution in that random mutations involve nature throwing a lot of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. I'm sure we can all name a few philosophies which despite their relative popularity are probably not in the long term interests of the survival of the species (cough MGTOW cough)

The other interesting thing is that the human brain operates as a feedback mechanism. Physiological or environmental causes beget neurochemical reactions which beget physiological causes, as anyone who has ever suffered from anxiety or depression can attest. Maybe ascetics just got caught in a recursive loop philosophically speaking, from which no external factor could dislodge them (because I guess they've turned away from external influences?)

 

[Phr3121]

Individual humans reach new psychological achievements all the time. Using willpower to overcome environmental resistance is a psychological achievement. The true understanding of a complex physical theory is an achievement. Forgiveness of a loathed enemy can be an achievement.

Animals have just as much emotion as humans. Do you own a dog? Have you raised livestock? What are animals doing when they don't want to be in water or tied up? Humans are by far the most destructive animal in the planet. All that high IQ has brought us to the brink of destruction. Have you ever witnessed a pig fleeing from a slaughterhouse? Yeah, he know he is going to be killed. He has good psychology and willpower too.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Animals have just as much emotion as humans. Do you own a dog? Have you raised livestock? What are animals doing when they don't want to be in water or tied up? Humans are by far the most destructive animal in the planet. All that high IQ has brought us to the brink of destruction. Have you ever witnessed a pig fleeing from a slaughterhouse? Yeah, he know he is going to be killed. He has good psychology and willpower too.

I've never denied animals psychology or emotions.

They just aren't comparable to ours, and though they may be more complex than the layman realizes (or more anthropomorphized), there's no evidence at all that they come close to our extremes.

Which should be expected. We're a unique species.

 

[Phr3121]

You wouldn't know unless you read the papers and I can tell you didn't.

(From the second paper)
"If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses—it's unrealistic," Simcoe says. "So there must be another way that it formed. And how exactly that happens, nobody knows."

Cliffs: a black hole cannot attain that mass given it was there in the universe's infancy, this leaves two options. It formed in an unexplicable way or there universe is a lot older than we were told. I don't know what else to tell you

I glanced through your links. I already knew what it is going to talk about. That is Simcoe's opinion. There are many others. He is asking how could the universe be created from the 'Big Bang' theory. That is the easy part. The hard part is, what created the 'Big Bang' to kick things off. For that I believe you have to go into religion and the existence of God.

Do you know what a 'black hole' is? It was a large star that collapsed into itself when it died. This is basic astronomy and physics. No serious scientist questions this stuff. I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I don't know if you could necessarily construe any spiritual or philosophical movement as a product of selection. It might be a product of evolution in that random mutations involve nature throwing a lot of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. I'm sure we can all name a few philosophies which despite their relative popularity are probably not in the long term interests of the survival of the species (cough MGTOW cough)

The other interesting thing is that the human brain operates as a feedback mechanism. Physiological or environmental causes beget neurochemical reactions which beget physiological causes, as anyone who has ever suffered from anxiety or depression can attest. Maybe ascetics just got caught in a recursive loop philosophically speaking, from which no external factor could dislodge them (because I guess they've turned away from external influences?)

That's a really good thought process.

The fluffy answer to my inquiry is something like, the basics of cognition evolved for specific adaptive purposes but then expanded, interacted, or generalized in ways that changed their functionality and usefulness. At some point those purposes likely became dis-attached from the adaptive intention.

This is something like what Dennett would call a "crane" in his aforementioned book. Though it's unlikely that some external force "pulled" human cognition out of the supposed darkness into what we experience now (such a miracle he would deem a "skyhook"), it does seem to be the case that a new layer of cognitive complexity was enabled(!) by the interaction of fundamentally simple, understandable parts. It's a gap that's really hard to wrap your mind around, for me anyway.

Dennett and Dawkins tried to use memes to do it. Memes essentially became units of selection that operated in symbolic space rather than natural space. But the circularity of the theory caused it to disintegrate pretty much as soon as it took off.

I like your recursive loop idea and depression analogy. I'll have to think more about those.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

I glanced through your links. I already knew what it is going to talk about. That is Simcoe's opinion. There are many others. He is asking how could the universe be created from the 'Big Bang' theory. That is the easy part. The hard part is, what created the 'Big Bang' to kick things off. For that I believe you have to go into religion and the existence of God.

Do you know what a 'black hole' is? It was a large star that collapsed into itself when it died. This is basic astronomy and physics. No serious scientist questions this stuff. I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I know I'm on the verge of injecting silicone somewhere brb

 

[EyeOfNewt]

I've never denied animals psychology or emotions.

They just aren't comparable to ours, and though they may be more complex than the layman realizes (or more anthropomorphized), there's no evidence at all that they come close to our extremes.

Which should be expected. We're a unique species.

Every species is unique. An octopus has brains for legs. Dolphins have sonars. Spiders poop textile. SJW have blue hair and I can go on.

 

[tonysmasseuse]

Not entirely sure where TS is going with this, but Asceticism and renunciation is a thing because the people who practice it (or attempt to) have found something that is sweeter than worldly pleasures - usually some type of consciousness/mindset (different religions/philosophies may call it different things but essentially it's some type of enlightened state of mind) and the very things that they renunciate is seen as a hindrance or distraction from that state of mind. Circa. So asceticism is not about 'giving up something' but rather attaining something that is better.

Certain people, for a variety of reasons, reach the conclusion that the next step in human evolution (theirs, at least) is the cultivation of mind/consciousness. Probably not for everyone.

 

[tonysmasseuse]

To manifest better flower

 

[minute bull]

Hillsy, what are you trying to say?!

If you don't understand that people come up with weird reasons for why they are such losers in life, the answer is comfort. We try to elevate ourselves in spite of the lack of success. Discipline, and its extreme SJW cousin Austerity, therefore becomes its own measure and end.

 

[eworden78]

I think it has to do with evolution of a few separate but linked traits:

1. Inquisitiveness. We observe something and we want to know the reason behind it. This is beneficial because it leads to increase in knowledge, knowledge that can be practical for survival. However, there's always a "why" behind the "why", and our knowledge will always hit a dead end a the limits of our practical ability to detect the recursive underlying "why". If you are a parent of a young inquisitive child, you will understand this.
2. Theory of Mind, our human ability to approximate the mental actions of another thinking being, and predict actions based on intentionality.
3. Our intentionality detector.
4. Survival drive. Our core operative is to stay alive. This drives most of our motivations, but at some point we all die. Our inherent survival drive doesn't mesh well with our inescapable mortality.
   
5. Codifying game theory driven altruism. There is an evolutionarily benefit for having a certain rules for how to react to other thinking entities. Triggering reciprocal altruism, tit-for-tat strategy, revenge, sacrificing for family and tribe, all can be defined in evolutionary terms, in game theory strategies. By codifying these evolutionary derived strategies into laws, and then tying those laws to an infallible third party, it's possible to create a more efficient cultural strategy.

The first three combined to create our tendency to create the concept of a god.
The fourth motivates our concept of afterlife.
The fifth drives or attachment of morals to religion.

Examples:
So we see a dead body, and a guy running away. Our brain assess the evidence to determine if something was done intentionally. Did the body just drop dead, or was it killed, if it was killed, who was it killed by, why was it killed, does the killer pose a future threat to me based on our estimates of it's intentions?
This is a super useful tool set for survival. The individual that can best detect and predict intentionality, has a marked survival advantage in a world of thinking entities.

One test for intentionality, is when is you observe something that isn't easily explained by random actions of obvious natural causes.
You see a random rock, no intentionality.
You see a stack of rocks, intentionality.

So when you see highly structured and precise things, without easily observable mechanics behind them, it's natural to assign intention to them. Sun rising and falling, tides, seasons, moon cycles, earthquakes, volcanoes, stellar and planetary motion, etc. These all beg the expectation of intentionality behind them.
This leads to the idea of a gods, unseen, intentioned, movers of things.

 

[Phr3121]

Not entirely sure where TS is going with this...

I'm not either. Let me know if you figure it out.

An octopus has brains for legs.

No, it does not. 40% of its brain is in the head, the other 60% are on its tentacles. It has 2 legs and 6 arms.

Newton's model is completely inaccurate compared to QFT for example.

Which model? I can think of 5. Lets take Newton's theory of the universe. Physics, gravity & the laws of motion. How is Newton completely inaccurate? Quantum physics explains Newton's laws of motion - Edwin F. Taylor

Link: http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/OgbornTaylor.pdf

'Classical Mechanics' deals with the motion of objects under forces or their own momentum. 'Quantum Mechanics' deals with the behavior of objects at the microscopic level where matter and energy start to mathematically converge because both can be observed to have wave-like behaviors at the level of Planck's constant.

You and @Caveat have not made a single clear argument so far. Since when is 1 + 1 = 3? There is no agreement on definitions, so it is impossible to argue or debate. A lot of 'fluff' in your writing. Yeah, I know where that silicone is being injected.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

You and @Caveat have not made a single clear argument so far. Since when is 1 + 1 = 3? There is no agreement on definitions, so it is impossible to argue or debate. A lot of 'fluff' in your writing. Yeah, I know where that silicone is being injected.

Mine are pretty clear, and other informed posters have responded to them accordingly (see @eworden78 above). You just aren't receptive.

That other guy is a bit loony though.

Actually I thought @MusterX might like this topic. Also @NoDak

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Not entirely sure where TS is going with this, but Asceticism and renunciation is a thing because the people who practice it (or attempt to) have found something that is sweeter than worldly pleasures - usually some type of consciousness/mindset (different religions/philosophies may call it different things but essentially it's some type of enlightened state of mind) and the very things that they renunciate is seen as a hindrance or distraction from that state of mind. Circa. So asceticism is not about 'giving up something' but rather attaining something that is better.

Certain people, for a variety of reasons, reach the conclusion that the next step in human evolution (theirs, at least) is the cultivation of mind/consciousness. Probably not for everyone.

Hillsy, what are you trying to say?!

If you don't understand that people come up with weird reasons for why they are such losers in life, the answer is comfort. We try to elevate ourselves in spite of the lack of success. Discipline, and its extreme SJW cousin Austerity, therefore becomes its own measure and end.

These posts are true enough, but you guys are missing the starting point of the inquiry here.

Evolutionary thinking distinguishes between proximal and distal explanations. The proximal explanation for how an organism is able to behave in a certain way (the why is reserved for human studies) is like what you've provided - ascetics have a specific psychological motivation that they act out, because they like it (simple), or it gives them a preferred social placement (less simple), or because they need to subconsciously justify an explanation for their place in the world (complex).

This is all well and good, but my OP is both a question about the distal explanation, and a more basic remark about how neat it is. How are humans able to pursue these various psychological motivations (which are far from obviously evolutionarily practical) in the first place, when even the most similarly constituted apes come nowhere close? The cognitive development required is nuts.

Asceticism is indeed a broad category @tonysmasseuse, because I wanted to leave the door open for different spectacles of behaviour. I could have just taken fasting or sexual abstinance resulting from spiritual commitments as examples, and postulated that some basic ability to delay gratification mingled with belief in god(s) to produce it, but that focus seemed a little too narrow.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I think it has to do with evolution of a few separate but linked traits:

1. Inquisitiveness. We observe something and we want to know the reason behind it. This is beneficial because it leads to increase in knowledge, knowledge that can be practical for survival. However, there's always a "why" behind the "why", and our knowledge will always hit a dead end a the limits of our practical ability to detect the recursive underlying "why". If you are a parent of a young inquisitive child, you will understand this.
2. Theory of Mind, our human ability to approximate the mental actions of another thinking being, and predict actions based on intentionality.
3. Our intentionality detector.
4. Survival drive. Our core operative is to stay alive. This drives most of our motivations, but at some point we all die. Our inherent survival drive doesn't mesh well with our inescapable mortality.
   
5. Codifying game theory driven altruism. There is an evolutionarily benefit for having a certain rules for how to react to other thinking entities. Triggering reciprocal altruism, tit-for-tat strategy, revenge, sacrificing for family and tribe, all can be defined in evolutionary terms, in game theory strategies. By codifying these evolutionary derived strategies into laws, and then tying those laws to an infallible third party, it's possible to create a more efficient cultural strategy.

The first three combined to create our tendency to create the concept of a god.
The fourth motivates our concept of afterlife.
The fifth drives or attachment of morals to religion.

Examples:
So we see a dead body, and a guy running away. Our brain assess the evidence to determine if something was done intentionally. Did the body just drop dead, or was it killed, if it was killed, who was it killed by, why was it killed, does the killer pose a future threat to me based on our estimates of it's intentions?
This is a super useful tool set for survival. The individual that can best detect and predict intentionality, has a marked survival advantage in a world of thinking entities.

One test for intentionality, is when is you observe something that isn't easily explained by random actions of obvious natural causes.
You see a random rock, no intentionality.
You see a stack of rocks, intentionality.

So when you see highly structured and precise things, without easily observable mechanics behind them, it's natural to assign intention to them. Sun rising and falling, tides, seasons, moon cycles, earthquakes, volcanoes, stellar and planetary motion, etc. These all beg the expectation of intentionality behind them.
This leads to the idea of a gods, unseen, intentioned, movers of things.

These are really good postulates. The focus is a little more on religion than I intended to elicit, and I might not track the development history on exactly the same course, but you mostly grasped what I was asking.

If you've never heard of Scott Atran or Pascal Boyer, you might be pleased to read that their explanatory frameworks are of a very similar structure.