Had to beat frantheman to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XIMuUBVuWM
dj On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > > Lions intrigue me. I am a double Leo. Not a drop of water in my > elements. Air, Earth and Fire. Have seen the mating and the mores of > the pride operate in human terms. We are less angelic than we think. > > On Jul 20, 12:05�pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Justin - I 've been wondering about that too - are species that sleep >> more, more vulnerable? I recall that lions sleep something like 20 >> hours a day. Monkeys something like 6 or 7 total each day. So it may >> be that the less vunerable sleep more. Maybe to conserve energy, which >> leads to having to hunt less often. As you suggest. Anyway, thanks for >> your thoughts. Jim >> >> On Jul 20, 1:36�am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to "After all, >> > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 >> > third of our lives.." >> >> > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a nocturnal >> > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed awake and >> > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with that, the >> > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of the >> > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at night. It >> > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species that >> > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime activity >> > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually die in >> > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my childhood says >> > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would be >> > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out of it. >> > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me. >> >> > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime environments >> > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an Algorithmic >> > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct survival >> > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given that >> > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is akin to >> > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage. >> >> > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of evolution: >> > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it survived >> > it must have a survival benefit! ;) >> >> > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the >> > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural >> > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not >> > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in >> > evidence. You just don't know. >> >> > On Jul 19, 12:52�pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Jim, >> >> > > In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your >> > > genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival. >> > > Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in >> > > evolutionary terms. >> >> > > So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than >> > > survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in >> > > fact. >> >> > > You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to prey >> > > that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. >> >> > > Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent >> > > conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism to >> > > make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. >> > > Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They do >> > > not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if evolution >> > > and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep would >> > > have been abolished long ago. >> >> > > It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why haven't >> > > we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to the >> > > organism to be a sleep. >> >> > > Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only phenomenon of >> > > living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to individual >> > > survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own >> > > species: >> >> > > 1) The human brain. >> >> > > Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a >> > > volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it bloomed >> > > to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it jumped to >> > > 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, >> > > when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it jumped >> > > to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. >> >> > > But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the >> > > brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions of >> > > women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises have >> > > been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this massive >> > > organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. >> >> > > Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire human >> > > energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found themselves >> > > having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their >> > > brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. >> >> > > Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering from a >> > > broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. >> >> > > 2) Walking on 2 legs. >> >> > > Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they >> > > could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice among >> > > the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to >> > > assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with chronic >> > > back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single human >> > > will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. Going >> > > back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more daunting >> > > than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our >> > > chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between escaping >> > > predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between >> > > catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our >> > > brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from >> > > starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually >> > > attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die without >> > > ever passing on their genetic codes. >> >> > > So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these burdens? >> >> > > Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural selection >> > > is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. Natural selection has no >> > > inclination to remove the characteristics which cause us great pain >> > > and discomfort. Natural selection doesn't care if we live or die. >> > > Because natural selection isn't capable of caring, or thinking, or >> > > realising what characteristics are beneficial, and which are >> > > burdensome. >> >> > > The reason we continue to sleep, walk on 2 legs, and have massive >> > > brains is the NET effect they have on us, as a species, is a >> > > beneficial one. So although, if you look at sleep from one angle, it >> > > seems to be a great disadvantage, if you look at it from another >> > > angle, you see that the benefits we gain from it far outweigh the >> > > disadvantages. >> >> > > Afterall, sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 >> > > third of our lives, but it keeps us fresh and awake and able to escape >> > > predators and catch prey for 2 thirds of our lives. If we never slept, >> > > the nature of our physiology would make us vulnerable for 100% of our >> > > lives (and short lives they would be!). >> >> > > In conclusion: >> >> > > Yes, many organisms have died from being asleep at the wrong time, >> > > having massive brains, and attempting to walk on two legs. But many >> > > more organisms have USED their brains to aid their survival, have USED >> > > their walking habits to benefit their survival, and used a good >> > > night's rest to make them must more 'fit' for an overwhelming majority >> > > of their lives. >> >> > > On the whole, these characteristics have been beneficial enough to >> > > allow the majority of the organisms that have these characteristics to >> > > survive, reproduce, and hand those characteristics down to their >> > > offspring. And the humans who refused to walk on two feet, didn't have >> > > as big brains, or didn't get enough sleep perished in the competition >> > > of their smarter, faster, and more energised rival humans. >> >> > > Natural selection doesn't refine us until we are perfect. It just gets >> > > rid of the specimens whose genes do not allow them to survive to pass >> > > them on. >> >> > > Regards, >> >> > > Garrie >> >> > > On Jul 19, 7:51�pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Garrie - on further reflection, is seems to me self-evident that sleep >> > > > makes the sleeper vulnerable to a �predator that isn't sleeping. So >> > > > since virtually all living forms sleep, sleep must be needed for some >> > > > reason more important than survival. Does that sound right? �Jim >> >> > > > On Jul 18, 10:24�am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Garrie - Excellent point. Thank you. Jim >> >> > > > > On Jul 17, 4:45�am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > If sleeping was dangerous enough to kill all animals that need >> > > > > > lots of >> > > > > > sleep, then indeed, those animals would have died out. But they >> > > > > > didn't. >> >> > > > > > The fact of the matter is that most animals who sleep did NOT die >> > > > > > out, >> > > > > > and therefore they WERE able to survive and reproduce. >> >> > > > > > So rather than thinking that the theory of evolution is wrong >> > > > > > based on >> > > > > > your hypothesis that sleep isn't compatible with naturally selected >> > > > > > highly evolved beings, I would tend to think that your hypothesis >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > sleep isn't compatible with naturally selected highly evolved >> > > > > > beings >> > > > > > is flawed. >> >> > > > > > There are many examples of features and characteristics that have >> > > > > > evolved that increase the risk of death. But as long as this risk >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > death does not kill people too early, then they have time >> >> ... >> >> read more �- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
