Ok I'll bite. We know that our brains are composed of matter which when arranged into a neurology results in sentience a subspecies of which is "caring". Now we know next to nothing about how that happens. If I consider the ecology as an organism and natural selection as a process in that organism how do I know that there is no "caring" going on at that level?
I am aware that evidence must be given to conclude something exists vice that it doesn't exist so I would never say that I conclude that it does and I am also aware of Ocham's razor but I think in this instance we know so little about the processes involved that we do not have two competing models one with fewer assumptions rather we seem to be absent even a coherent hypothesis. So how can you conclude positively that nature as a whole in the ecological sense is not sentient? What physical criteria is required that is absent? I realize that nature does not equal natural selection but again natural selection is at its root a physical interaction and we do not have a good model of the relationship between physical interactions and psychic states so how do you get there positively? With respect to the advantages or disadvantages of sleep it seems that the matter is open to experimental verification by comparing the death rates in the two states in a range of species. I am unaware of any such comparison and in the absence of it I am not sure that I agree that sleep isn't a state that has enough "awareness" to detect a threat and doesn't decrease the vulnerability.in other words I don't think that it is silly "that being unconscious and unwary of your surroundings is not disadvantageous" The reason is that it is an effective mimic of the un-edible. It has a similiar effect to "playing dead" and does not stimulate predator awareness. I will agree that "you can sneak up on a sleeping person easier than an awake person" ... at least I think you can - if you know they are there beforehand. But sleeping may still be less dangerous because it prevents the stirring that alerts the predator.... that is - of course - unless you snore. (Now snoring there is something that should have been bred out of us long ago.) Either way. The answer is empirical and I don't think you have established the fact. This does not mean that sleeping hasn't additional benefits and may have effect on the brain that is useful. It is a separate question of the relative risk of death for a sleeping and not sleeping organism. I am reminded of the mothers who end up suffocating their children when trying to escape the Nazi's because the children were stirring. Especially in the young, those that have not yet passed on their genes the sleep that they take seems to me to be an advantage. Less mischief. Less risk. Decreases the risk profile therefore not silly. On Jul 20, 1:55 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > First of all, I never stated the sleep was an evolutionary > disadvantage. To the contrary, I stated that it's net effect was to be > beneficial to the organism, NOT to sta > > But that 'net effect' is the result of both positive and negative > outcomes. Positive outcomes of sleep are reduced calorific > consumption, increased mental and physical agility after sleep, etc. > Negative outcomes are being temporary unconscious, and I'm sorry, but > to take the view that being unconscious and unwary of your > surroundings is not disadvantageous is just silly. Even if you are > well hidden and sleep in the dark, you are still more vulnerable being > well-hidden and asleep than you are when you are well-hidden and > awake. > > And the reason I stated the Natural Selection doesn't have any > inclinations and doesn't care if we live or die is because Natural > Selection is not a 'thing', it is not a tangible agent of evolution. > It does not a being that makes conscious decicions to add and remove > characteristics. It is, rather, a natural process which results from > death of the weak and survival of the strong. It doesn't have cares or > wonts, it doesn't have preferences or conscious inclinations. I do > know this. It is a fact. > > So I must stress this again. I am not taking the position that > sleeping is of negative benefit to our survival. This simply isn't > true, it has massive benefit. But it isn't 100% benefit. It has a > massive NET benefit, and that net benefit is an accumulation of loads > of positive benefits, minus a few negative benefits. > > Garrie > > On 20 July, 09:36, 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
