Please, don't omit the end of the sentence, which I feel is all important.
We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk on its hind legs<b> - and that's not a lesson for us.</b> It's not a lesson for us, because it was not 'us' who consciously decided that we would walk on our hind legs and abandon our front paws. It wasn't even our ancestors. Nobody consciously decided that this should happen, so it is not a lesson for anyone to learn. I was refuting the point that all pain acts as a warning for us to learn not to do something again. To teach us a lesson about touching fire, etc. I was saying that, yes, situational pain such as being burnt by touching fire serves the purposes of teaching us not to do such things. But chronic physiological pain does not 'teach' us any lessons. We cannot learn not to do something by having inherent physiological back pain. That happens without cause in a lot of cases. On Jul 21, 12:27 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than > that we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which > walk on its hind legs…” – GM > > This is quite a sweeping commentary Garrie. I would posit that the > ‘we’ you suggest here have much to learn about this specific topic. > > On Jul 20, 11:35 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Situational pain is an evolutionary benefit, but chronic phsyiological > > pain as the result of our particular course of evolution is not. > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > > on its hind legs - and that's not a lesson for us. > > > A comparison to things like back pain is within the species of the > > Cheetah. Cheetah's have had to evolve rather quickly to account for > > the increasing speed of their prey. Their physiology, however, is > > having a hard time compensating for these changes, and as such, the > > modern cheetah has very chronic inherent problems with its limbs. This > > is largely the reason why the modern cheetah is near extinction. That > > kind of pain and suffering simply isn't beneficial to the species. > > Situational pain and suffering is, I grant you. But that's not what > > we're discussion when we talk about the things I was talking about. > > > On Jul 20, 4:27 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "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. > > > > I missed this quote in the original so I might be taking it out of > > > context but our vulnerabilities to pain and discomfort are absolutely > > > a survival benefit. We learn what not to do and how to be more > > > careful by learning what causes us pain. Some people with rare > > > conditions don't experience pain and have to be very, very careful to > > > avoid injury. Lepers come to mind. Various neurological disorders > > > that might cause insensitivity to pain are very dangerous. > > > > djOn Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:36 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
