ROTFL, Don. Although, spontaneously, I'd offer this :-): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUkCCTCqF8&feature=related
On 20 Jul., 19:52, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr ยป --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
