How could asceticism have evolved?

[Phr3121]

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

Well, yes. I gave him a 'like' before you posted this. He follows logic and gives good examples. I still don't understand the title of your thread (asceticism) and math, black holes, and the universe. Those are 4 separate and unique topics.
@eworden78

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Well, yes. I gave him a 'like' before you posted this. He follows logic and gives good examples. I still don't understand the title of your thread (asceticism) and math, black holes, and the universe. Those are 4 separate and unique topics.
@eworden78

Yea, the connection between asceticism and math might be unclear (the other two I agree have no bearing here).

All I meant there was that both activities rely on a deep commitment to abstract symbols to work properly, and it's difficult to understand why we as a species would ever need even the ability to comprehend those abstractions to such a degree to get by successfully in nature.

There's some evidence that this was a culturally contingent process, btw. There was some indigenous culture, somewhere far north if I recall, that just didn't understand how to respond to syllogisms. That level of logical abstraction had never been demanded of them by the environment; their communication was almost entirely structured by the recollection of specific episodes they'd directly experienced. Fuck, I forget where I read that.

 

[franklinstower]

I think the question might better be asked "How could the human species NOT have developed asceticism?

It seems to be the natural outgrowth of mystical experience which also seems to be a natural human experience. People have mystical experience and then are drawn to experience more of that so they spend more time alone and over time that developed into specific practices.

As a child I remember wishing deeply that I was a house cat. Its not that I wanted to sleep all the time but there was something they had that I wanted. I could not formulate that in my mind at the time though. Now I know I wanted to "be" alone. No one had to teach me that.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

Well, yes. I gave him a 'like' before you posted this. He follows logic and gives good examples. I still don't understand the title of your thread (asceticism) and math, black holes, and the universe. Those are 4 separate and unique topics.
@eworden78

Supermassive blackholes near the edge of the visible universe imply what others suspected, that the universe was older or that it had no beginning. Now ask yourself, if the universe requires no beginning, what does this entail for life/existence? Does it require no beginning too? Question is very much related to the topic.

Scientists find 'behemoth' black hole so big it could challenge our understanding of the universe's beginning
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-gemini-mass-universe-beginning-a8095801.html

 

[Barbas619]

In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the Earth (matter).

Discuss.

 

[Organic Damage]

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.

I think Dennett is going on my reading list. Cheers!

 

[Yotsuya]

Asceticism is random generator of new ideas. Deprivation, starvation etc. produce hallucinatory states which produce bigger pool of memes for the community to choose from. Sometimes the ideas are really good or at least catchy and greatly help the community. Worth having few individuals freeloading (monks, shamans), as part of the deal often is, that they don't consume that much. Or even if most of those ideas are not created this way but involve actual thinking and innovation from people in seemingly freeloading positions, requirement of asceticism makes them less appealing for psychopaths etc. and reduces wasted resources / noise from faked revelations and such.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I don’t think it “evolved.” It is denying oneself of the very things we have evolved to be compelled to do. It is simply a conscious decision.

 

[minute bull]

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

Yeah because you're trying to be vague and funny. No offense.

I know what I think and you know what I think because you've couched as the common "proximal" interpretation. But your question is unclear and I need more explanation as to why you're unclear. The fact that not everyone immediately grasps your question should suggest that it's a bit esoteric, and given you're a dude likes to play mental superiority maybe you want to slow down so the rest of the class can catch up to where you are in this uncharted territory.

Still it's hard for me to think you wonder how navel gazing came about in a thread like this. But maybe that's not your question. I don't know.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I don’t think it “evolved.” It is denying oneself of the very things we have evolved to be compelled to do. It is simply a conscious decision.

But the capacity to make such a conscious decision evolved, right? As did the ability to (deeply) understand the symbols involved, and some tendency to make sacrifices for them.

Yeah because you're trying to be vague and funny. No offense.

I know what I think and you know what I think because you've couched as the common "proximal" interpretation. But your question is unclear and I need more explanation as to why you're unclear. The fact that not everyone immediately grasps your question should suggest that it's a bit esoteric, and given you're a dude likes to play mental superiority maybe you want to slow down so the rest of the class can catch up to where you are in this uncharted territory.

Still it's hard for me to think you wonder how navel gazing came about in a thread like this. But maybe that's not your question. I don't know.

Yea, not interested in the needless speculative resistance.

The language is plain, and resources have been cited for those who want to "catch up".

 

[minute bull]

How does someone resist a point that's not being made? LAZY!

 

[Phr3121]

There's some evidence that this was a culturally contingent process, btw. There was some indigenous culture, somewhere far north if I recall, that just didn't understand how to respond to syllogisms.

Going back to the book I quoted earlier: 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', once a society achieves a higher level of production, it has more time to think. This higher level of thinking and creation can only be achieved once basic needs have been met. Those who spend 90% of their time worrying about food will not reach this stage.

Also, you might enjoy this article: 'Are There Cross-Cultural Differences in Reasoning?'

Link: http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2006xcultural.pdf

...and this book:

 

[Phr3121]

Supermassive blackholes near the edge of the visible universe imply what others suspected, that the universe was older or that it had no beginning. Now ask yourself, if the universe requires no beginning, what does this entail for life/existence? Does it require no beginning too? Question is very much related to the topic.

Scientists find 'behemoth' black hole so big it could challenge our understanding of the universe's beginning

Yes, I read the article.

"There is one large mystery that remains to be solved: How did a black hole of such massive proportions form so early in the universe's history? It's thought that black holes grow by accreting, or absorbing mass from the surrounding environment. Extremely large black holes, such as the one identified by Simcoe and his colleagues, should form over periods much longer than 690 million years."

What I failed to read in the article is the fact that the universe was developing at a very fast pace during its infancy. Nowhere near the speed it is expanding today. So, yes, it is entirely possible for a black hole of that size to have developed when it did. We are talking speeds (time) of 1/1,000,000 of a second. Like nuclear fission in a nuclear bomb.

How can the universe not have a beginning? There is a developing timeframe that can be traced. Life on earth clearly had a beginning. Only people who believe the earth is flat would believe otherwise. The harder question would be why have we not found life outside of earth?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Going back to the book I quoted earlier: 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', once a society achieves a higher level of production, it has more time to think. This higher level of thinking and creation can only be achieved once basic needs have been met. Those who spend 90% of their time worrying about food will not reach this stage.

Also, you might enjoy this article: 'Are There Cross-Cultural Differences in Reasoning?'

Link: http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2006xcultural.pdf

...and this book:

Those are much better suggestions!

I'm not sure reasoning methods would be tied to leisure time in the way Diamond suggests though - that seems applicable to cultural innovations like writing, but the software for reasoning would likely have been coded already by then, even if it had yet to be made explicit. It's not something that people would just sit back and contemplate how to do at that stage.

That said, there are certainly difficulties in distinguishing between who is able to do things vs. who is likely to do things, as the linked paper suggests. Cultural differences in cognition could be a result of different habits or prompts rather than differences in ability.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Aegon Spengler]

There are 4 dimensions we have evolved to have access too, right? Length, depth, width and time.

Perhaps imagination is the 5th dimension and that's where asceticism comes from!

Human evolution reminds me a bit of fishing. Random mutations are like bait and the ones that catch on and help pick up fish tend to get used more and built upon.

Chomsky dishes on this subject a bit here:

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

So much of the appearance of scientific knowledge is in fact the regurgitation of random shit some guy made up while on an intense drug trip

 

[minute bull]

 

[tonysmasseuse]

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.

I do think your view of asceticism is quite narrow (as it shines through between the lines).
In some buddhist traditions it is a total involvement - body, speech and mind - and not limited to just the senses or the material world. The renunciation goes far beyond just being a good boy or girl or a teetotaling vegetarian celibate or...you name it. There could be total renunciation of speech, thinking, any form of identification or time itself (being completely immersed in 'the now' or eternity for example) until there is only mind itself. For all intents and purposes, we're talking complete self-annihilation here. Who could possibly dream up such things and gladly, fervently, and, most importantly, of their own free will, pursue for thousands of years?

I feel your enquiries are intellectual exercises (NTTAWWT) but to even begin to approach an answer worth its salt, you'd probably have to do some pretty intense real life experiments...

Not advocating for buddhist philosophy per se but i reckon if it's good enough for the most intelligent people on earth (that would be Asians yo) it's good enough for me, a lowly European

Ps. You may think your language is plain because you have gotten used to it, but it actually leans fairly heavily on the scholastic side. Just a heads up, brother, no offense. Good thread!

 

[Phr3121]

Perhaps imagination is the 5th dimension.

No. That would be gravity...

 

[Phr3121]

Not advocating for buddhist philosophy per se but i reckon if it's good enough for the most intelligent people on earth (that would be Asians yo) it's good enough for me, a lowly European.

No. That would be Germans -- at least physicists.

Ps. You may think your language is plain because you have gotten used to it, but it actually leans fairly heavily on the scholastic side. Just a heads up, brother, no offense. Good thread!

Seriously...