About two hundred thousand years ago, the strongest predator appeared on the stage of nature - us. Without large teeth or sharp claws, without long hunting arms and without a poisonous bite, a skilled hunter developed whose skill comes from his "wisdom" and his ability to develop tools and weapons
Carnivores have roamed the earth for about 500 million years. The earliest predators were probably marine creatures - flatworms or molluscs. Much later, the predatory dinosaurs appeared, the best known of which is the T-Rex. After them the saber-toothed cats would throw their prey on their surroundings and today wolves, tigers, lions, sharks, orca whales and others do it.
From the Apes family, a species developed in which one of the species "conquers" the world. About two hundred thousand years ago, the strongest predator appeared on the stage of nature - us. Without large teeth or sharp claws, without long hunting arms and without a poisonous bite, a skilled hunter developed whose skill comes from his "wisdom" and his ability to develop tools and weapons. As our hunting skills developed we expanded the variety, size and quantity of animals hunted. We destroyed (in North America) the homing pigeon and the buffalo herds, we made the dodo disappear, we brought the whale population to the brink of extinction. The fleet of fishing vessels causes the destruction of fish populations due to unsustainable fishing. North America kills more large mammals than all causes combined
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00458.x/abstract
The consumption or predation of the world's fauna by the human population presents researchers with an interesting problem:
Usually predator and prey are in an evolutionary "arms" race, with the predator developing fast running and the prey developing "evasion exercises". When a predator has sharp teeth, the prey develops horns for protection. Faced with predators that hunt in packs, the preyed upon organize in herds for protection.
But it turns out that animals have not developed a defense against us. How? Is it because the animals didn't have enough time to develop a defense or maybe because of a lack of genetic variation that would allow the development of a defense? Is it because of the way or method we hunt? Questions that many ecologists ask. The one who tries to answer the questions is Professor Geerat Vermeij from the University of California (Davis) who publishes his conclusions in: Evolution
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01592.x/abstract
After studying the effect of predators on evolution for more than thirty years, the professor writes: "Usually when a predator appears in the field, the existing species adapt themselves and develop protection through various means, but it seems that such a possibility does not exist when the predators need to respond to the development of man as a super predator." .
First the professor examines the adaptation of animals to predators (not people) and shows that predators evolve
Consistent and successful defense methods: one of the successful methods is to be big, if the prey can grow big enough, the bigger the prey, the harder it is for the predator to subdue it. Even pack predators risk injury or death
When they attack a large animal. Measurements have shown that (terrestrial) herbivores weigh up to ten times their typical carnivore.
The predator does not develop a large enough mouth to deal with its prey, which explains why lions, wolves or orca whales do not attack a healthy and strong buffalo, a large male moose, an adult whale (respectively), but attack the small and weak young ones.
Species that cannot "develop" large dimensions develop other defense methods: such as armor (shells), toxicity or agility. One of the examples is the group of molluscs such as squids and octopuses which were initially protected inside a shell and then came out and developed toxicity, agility and camouflage skills.
But then the humans appeared. The spread of the human population has created some of the greatest ecological and evolutionary changes in the history of life. At first we hunted and gathered on land, but very quickly the exploitation of tidal areas began. Collecting shellfish and fish from these areas was an important source of food for the prehistoric human populations that lived in vast areas such as South Africa, South America, and the coasts of the Pacific Ocean.
The next step was hunting large animals. The size that for other predators was a deterrent, attracted the human hunters because the size meant more juicy meat for the human hunter, and thus the wild oxen, buffaloes, mammoths and whales became a source of attraction and a favorite hunter.
Other methods and tools of defense lost their effectiveness and became a source of attraction: elephants were hunted to obtain the ivory tusks, crabs with huge pincers were hunted to eat the meat in the pincers. Insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish and other groups that have developed bright colors as a warning against poison are collected and displayed as ornaments and decorations. In other words, protective measures have become a source of attraction in a world where man rules.
Not only did we hunt large species, we hunt and fish the large individuals in populations of small species, fishing and hunting methods that cause damage to many populations.
Professor Wormy examined the effect of fishing and collecting molluscs and skin tufts (urchins and starfish) and found that out of 40 species the largest individuals were selected and collected. That is, the size that has always been a defense against predators is not a defense against the super hunter. Oysters that are stuck to the rock are removed with the help of cleavers and again the natural protection does not protect. Swallows' nests in remote caves are collected in commercial quantities, cubs of sea bears that have been hatched in hiding places are killed en masse.
Predators have developed toxicity and indeed a number of marine creatures are poisonous to humans, but humans have found ways to circumvent toxicity, since the poison is usually concentrated in certain organs. Man has learned to remove the poisonous organs and thus the poisonous creatures are eaten. Again and again methods and defenses that species have developed over millions of years are at a disadvantage when the super hunter comes into the picture. That is: the way in which man hunts is the main factor that prevents animals from developing adaptation and protection against the super hunter.
And yet animals respond to environmental pressures even in a short time and indeed there are species that responded to the super hunter. When super-carnivores were "taken out of the equation", "sub-carnivores" took their place. When in the 20th century the sea lion population collapsed due to wild fishing, they were replaced by shrimps and crabs that ate shells and oysters. As a result, the oysters developed thicker shells, but we collect the shells.
Foxes are more common in populated areas due to the removal of wolves, also in our districts. Following the harassment of wolves, jackal populations are increasing. There are also species that the super hunter is unable to harm and they become "pests" such as cockroaches or mice and rats. Parasitic and semi-parasitic species occupy new habitats and cause serious damage to the natural environment and its human inhabitants.
According to Prof. Wormi: "We continue to hunt on a "biblical" scale, with the help of resourcefulness and initiative we hunt more animals and target larger animals."
"The appearance of man and his technological development causes a huge change in the evolution of many species on earth. In evolutionary terms, we lead our prey down a dead-end path where they have no means of defense and no possibility of response, and the result leads to a disaster for many species on the face of the earth, a disaster whose meaning we are only beginning to understand."
Previous studies have already shown that the "monkey" that has become a super hunter causes the extinction of species at a speed that exceeds all the extinctions in the history of the earth. A thousand times faster than the extinction of the dinosaurs. Unlike previous extinctions that happened because of natural events that caused radical changes in living conditions, the extinction that is happening nowadays is caused by a super hunter, a "smart" creature that sees itself as a supreme ruler. Such extinction also harms the exterminator, and therefore it is appropriate that the same "wise man" stop and neutralize the mechanism of self-destruction. A mechanism developed by a "smart" super hunter can be dismantled and neutralized with the help of that intelligence.
The first and correct step to stop the extinction will be when Instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
57 תגובות
I return to the original idea of the article, and my sad conclusion is that the mechanism that will ensure survival in the face of the super predator monkey is boredom - whatever interests us, for better or for worse, will survive.
Grace.
The only thing I wrote is: "I believe very little in spirits, demons and possessions. But maybe you will agree with me that 30 souls in one body, boys and girls, sometimes animals, each with a different personality, some of them speaking foreign languages with different accents - requires super sophistication even in terms of computerized evolution."
So surely there is a rational explanation, even if we wait - but it seems like a parasitic intelligence.
Israel
I was looking for "the few things" (it's always intriguing to know how you look to people).
Still, you were right about the range (I didn't think about the naming thing, even though it's immediate).
In any case, your definition of split personality does not match the definition as presented by Arie.
Of course there can be additional layers, so I'm not ruling anything out (like in any subject, roughly).
I agree that we should wait for an in-depth article on the subject (even though I am really against the additional personality thing you presented).
Mourning demons and spirits??!? Long live Shapira!
there is!
Israel,
A distinction must be made between injury and criticism. If you interpret my every criticism as an insult, then the channels of communication between us are blocked. Want an apology? I have no problem pulling plenty of these out of my sleeve. But such a game is not included in what I consider a good sport. I have a lot of criticism towards the way you conduct the discourse here (narrow-minded, on the one hand and ignoring responses, on the other), and it goes without saying that it is difficult to separate it from personal criticism. At the time I granted you an exemption from comments. From this moment on I excuse myself from responding to you.
R.H.
"I agree with Chen. Evolution does not work immediately.” And with me too. This is exactly my argument against evolution: procrastination. What any computer programmer can do in a minute - takes an idler thousands of years.
I believe very little in ghosts, demons and possessions. But you may agree with me that 30 souls in one body, boys and girls, sometimes animals, each with a different personality, some of them speaking foreign languages with different accents - requires super sophistication even in computerized evolution terms.
But since I have no background on the subject, it seems to me that we will have to wait for Aryeh's article.
Grace.
I am not ignoring your words. I fully understand what you are talking about. But since what you wrote did not really answer what I asked - a theoretical possibility for the reality of additional intelligence within us - I chose to sharpen the subject with a personal example.
After Aryeh's response, do you still believe that the issue is so simple and as you say "there is no additional personality, and what you describe has nothing to do with split personality."?
I think we all need to hear from someone who understands a little more before we form an opinion.
And regarding your youth - a few things, but mainly according to the name.
My generation (I'm almost 55) are named Jacob, Yehuda, Moshe. Chen sounds more 20-30.
By the way, was I right?
Do you know Teharlev's song "The cycle of girls in nature" about girls' names changing with the generation?
jubilee.
After all, the text of the treaty that was brought before you for signing a week ago:
"I hereby undertake not to intentionally personally harm the respondents, but as a response to a personal harm to me intended by a respondent. If I offended by mistake, and the commenter called me to order, I will apologize and will not repeat my mistake.
And that's why I came to the undersigned:
—————————————- ”
And here is your response:
"to! to! Israel! signed I signed"
1. There was no intentional personal harm to you on my part.
2. You introduced a blatant and purposeful personal tone when you wrote "Once again you show an annoying narrow-mindedness."
3. You are called to order.
4. You didn't apologize.
5. You continue.
Should I conclude that you are going back and withdrawing your signature from the treaty? Because if not, I demand the immediate implementation of the sections discussing the apology and the cessation of the personal papers.
Israel,
I agree with Chen. Evolution does not work immediately. Until recently, about 7000 years ago, we lived as small game hunters and the one who ate the most fat was the one who survived. Today things are changing, it is possible that today a selection is actually taking place in favor of those who prefer healthy food and the obsessions will go and disappear (although in your LA it must look different).
Selection does not work at the individual level and success of a species does not always indicate success at the individual level. Take the cows for example. Man has selected for fat cows and as a result the cow breed has multiplied to become one of the most common and evolutionarily successful mammals on earth, but what kind of life do they have at the individual level?
Another instructive example is shown by Yuval Noach Harari in his excellent and highly recommended book "A Brief History of Humanity"
http://www.text.org.il/index.php?book=1105062
It is that with the agricultural revolution and the resulting transition to permanent settlements, humanity experienced a population explosion and a huge culture, however, the quality of life decreased drastically. From people who ran all day, ate a huge variety of fruits, vegetables, seeds and meat and worked more or less only one day a week hunting and all the rest of the time we had free time we became farmers and subservient builders with gut problems who eat a limited and limited menu who work 24-7 to feed the feudal capitalists.
Israel
I have a little feeling that you choose to ignore my words, and examples that are suitable for every child will not help.
There is no extra personality, and what you describe has nothing to do with split personality.
It all stems from emotional thinking of the mind.
These are psychological aspects that vary from person to person. No one likes to be rejected and certainly not from someone they feel something "real" about.
What if she rejects me?
What if I can't provide it?
What if I'm childish for her?
Have you seen her ex-boyfriend? What am I compared to?
I don't have enough money
What if, what if, what if.
You know you have one chance (well not always), so maybe we should wait a bit, be more in her company, get to know each other better, and only then do we make the move?
I have heated arguments with myself, and I also speak loudly, so if you heard me from the side (I make sure they don't) you would think I'm crazy and suffering from a split personality.
but I do not.
And I'm just curious, how did you get the idea that I'm young? From my drafting skills?
Expansion on the subject of split personality. This is part of my updated letter on the subject. The article also appears on this website, but it is not updated.
The number of different identities can reach dozens. Each identity emerges and appears from time to time and has a name (given by the patient himself), gender, age, different features, behavior and accent, different taste in clothing, different knowledge, skills and memories and most important of all - the basic personality does not know the others and is not aware of them.
It sounds really imaginary, but this disorder is real. It turns out that the people in it suffered severe and continuous trauma in their childhood - mainly non-stop sexual abuse and in many cases - within the family.
This disorder was previously considered rare but this is because many patients with this disorder were not properly diagnosed. In the past, there were many psychiatrists who denied the existence of the disorder and attributed the traumatic history to false memories implanted in the patients by the therapists. Today it is known that this disorder is more widespread than once thought and there are no disagreements about its existence, but even today it happens that those with it are mistakenly diagnosed as suffering from another disorder.
This disorder is called Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). In the past it was called Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). In popular parlance, this disorder is called split personality.
Dissociative identity disorder is an amazing and interesting disorder that is difficult to grasp and understand. Many, including therapeutic factors, are not aware of it, and on the other hand, it has received various publications in the media.
Farm - in the film, there are three faces to the farm
Sybil - in the book of that name; It was translated into Hebrew and a film based on it was also produced
Billy Milligan - in the book The 24 Faces of Billy Milligan; Translated into Hebrew
Sarah - in the book of love it is not a knife; Originally published in Israel
Yuval Shetrit - in the film The Girl with Thirty Identities; In the Real Face program on Channel 10
Israel,
You can scold me all you want, but the fact is that you are evasive Like your habit From addressing things that do not fit your agenda. You insist you are not dyslexic. If only it were. But would saying that you are de-selective also be considered a descent into personal lines in your eyes?
jubilee.
Once again you enter personal lines and do not take responsibility. The suspicion creeps into my heart that what you call "annoying narrow-mindedness" is nothing but an attack of dyslexia, and I don't mean mine.
See yourself as called to order. You must apologize (as you promised) and wait 3 turns before responding back.
Grace.
I'm also leaning towards option 1. But so you understand what I mean by option 2, I'll give you an example that maybe, as a young man, (so it seems to me), you can identify with.
Let's say you want to start dating someone. You have no doubt that this is what you want, but something in you stops you, makes you blush, choke, get confused, and do everything you don't want to do.
It is possible that that "something" in you knows something that is hidden from you, and its intention is to save you from the worst of all. But Dahil Rabcom: who is the boss here? You know that you have decided that you are interested in her, and you also know that the question of love is not kind to those who hesitate. So who has the right, within your body or soul, to act against what your consciousness has decided it wants?
Think about this the next time you encounter such a situation. You may find that the only way to win in such situations is to ignore those negative feelings, and treat them as uninvited parasitic intelligence working against you.
2 am in Los Angeles - good night.
Israel,
Again you show an annoying narrow-mindedness. The human individual is nothing more than one "chariot" of billions that carries the human genome. In any case, we don't live more than a few decades. What is good or bad for each and every one of us is not a consideration at all.
If*********
And I agree with Yuval,
Lots of options that touch each other, that's what I tried to explain in the first response.
Maliciously, Yuval, maliciously.
It doesn't change the principle: it's possible that heroin or vodka really is exactly what the drugged or drunk needs, and only the smart subconscious knows that. Still: if the conscious decision of our drunkards is to avoid alcohol, who within his private body has the right to force him to act contrary to his decision? who is the boss?
I have no doubt that the answer is basically option number 1.
All in all, we are all animals of nature, most of our lives we searched for food and made sure to continue our generation (for most people this continues to this day, unfortunately).
So it's not enough that you've been chasing food all your life, think that I've created the ultimate meal for you (in our case it's Dunkin Donuts).
The instinct that accompanied you all these years + genetic problems = a great man.
But why do you go that far, you have no way of knowing with a mushroom whether it is poisonous or not until you have tried, so why didn't evolution take care of that for us?.
Evolution didn't worry about many things for us.
Evolution will make sure that you survive (at least try), and less about how you look (depending on whether the natural selection in a certain population depends on a pairing that works according to appearance - a peacock).
Maybe if you were a picky eater, you wouldn't be here.
Israel,
You see only two possible possibilities and ignore (if not maliciously, then probably subconsciously) other possible possibilities. The example you gave is not good. It is certainly possible that sprouts and low-fat chicken are better than other things, but the body needs additional substances that are actually found, not on us, in junk food.
Grace.
Still, the common denominator for all these phenomena is that they all work against the body, or mind, that hosts them, and this against his will and decision.
If you have a tendency to obesity you don't want to eat cake. Your conscious decision is to eat sprouts and lean chicken. This is the best thing for you, and if you do it, you will see good and fast results.
So why don't most oils do this? Why didn't evolution develop an appetite for good and healthy food? to exercise? Why should we exert willpower to do what is clearly good for us?
I see two possible options:
1. Evolution is too slow. She is still stuck 20,000 years in the past.
2. There is another entity in us that does what's on its mind, and doesn't hold us accountable.
Split personality points towards option 2, but really that sounds a bit delusional. That's why I wanted someone who knows a little about the subject to expand.
Occam was not a psychiatrist, or a doctor, although he held a sharp scalpel in his hand. See
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%9D
Israel,
In the matter of personality splitting, one should be careful.
With your permission, I will quote from Wikipedia:
"However, the diagnosis and prevalence of the phenomenon are controversial issues among psychiatrists and mental health therapists, and some even claim that identity disorder does not exist and its diagnosis is medically invalid."
I was exposed to a real case of split personality for the first time (if we don't refer to the movie "Identity" 😉 ) in a screen saver program on Channel 2, which tells about a woman who has 30 different personalities.
At the end of the program, I decided that there was nothing to be done and I just needed to acknowledge the problem (in case anyone doubts).
But my brother drew my attention to the delusional part, where you see Dana (the one who suffers from a split personality) separate from her friends because she feels that another character is taking over her, and how they say "here I suspected".
It felt to me as if she had an urge to consciously change, and even more that she changed into a very extreme character (a baby).
What I want to say is that I think psychiatrists don't really have the knowledge to understand the source of the problem.
This is where brain scientists come in, who will try to see through different mappings (MRI maybe) what happens in the brain during the transition of figures... maybe they have already done it.
Occam was a psychiatrist?
In conclusion, maybe splitting a personality is something much less complex than it is made out to be..
Look at all these phenomena, bulimia, depression is a very complex business that originates from the environment, from experiences (meaning a type of trauma, and this is a key part!!). If you line up 30 children you will find that each one has a certain degree of joy in life. It is certain that there is a child with relatively little happiness in life compared to the other children.. I mean genetics (I was just throwing out about happiness in life, not sure if it has anything to do with depression).
A combination of all the factors often created the same phenomena.
Bulimia is something that I think developed in a very late period, with the whole modeling thing, and the media, most bulimic women dreamed of being a model and most of them actually modeled.
We simply push our brains to the limit, spread over very extensive and different fields (most of them just anal), where you choose the most extreme people, and you get a new mental illness 🙂
In the matter of personality splitting, one should be careful.
With your permission, I will quote from Wikipedia:
"However, the diagnosis and prevalence of the phenomenon are controversial issues among psychiatrists and mental health therapists, and some even claim that identity disorder does not exist and its diagnosis is medically invalid."
I was exposed to a real case of split personality for the first time (if we don't refer to the movie "Identity" 😉 ) in a screen saver program on Channel 2, which tells about a woman who has 30 different personalities.
At the end of the program, I decided that there was nothing to be done and I just needed to acknowledge the problem (in case anyone doubts).
But my brother drew my attention to the delusional part, where you see Dana (the one who suffers from a split personality) separate from her friends because she feels that another character is taking over her, and how they say "here I suspected".
It felt to me as if she had an urge to consciously change, and even more that she changed into a very extreme character (a baby).
What I want to say is that I think psychiatrists don't really have the knowledge to understand the source of the problem.
This is where brain scientists come in, who will try to see through different mappings (MRI maybe) what happens in the brain during the transition of figures... maybe they have already done it.
Occam was a psychiatrist?
In conclusion, maybe splitting a personality is something much less complex than it is made out to be..
Look at all these phenomena, bulimia, depression is a very complex business that originates from the environment, from experiences (meaning a type of trauma, and this is a key part!!). If you line up 30 children you will find that each one has a certain degree of joy in life. It is certain that there is a child with relatively little happiness in life compared to the other children.. I mean genetics (I was just throwing out about happiness in life, not sure if it has anything to do with depression).
A combination of all the factors often created the same phenomena.
Bulimia is something that I think developed in a very late period, with the whole modeling thing, and the media, most bulimic women dreamed of being a model and most of them actually modeled.
We simply push our brains to the limit, spread over very extensive and different fields (most of them just anal), where you choose the most extreme people, and you get a new mental illness 🙂
Grace
Was your last comment directed at me?
Let's focus for a moment on split personality. In the book and movie "Sybil", which is based on a true case, it is told about a girl who is inhabited by no less than 16 different characters, including 2 boys. Neither character is fully aware of the other.
evolution? Disease? Whatever it is, it takes enormous sophistication to create such an elaborate mechanism.
Ockham states: very simply, these are foreign souls, "parasitic intelligences" that have found in Sibyl a favorable ground for nesting.
From here to reach consequences for bulimia or depression, the road is very short.
But that's just wild speculation. I really have no idea how it works.
In my opinion the answer to your questions originates from brain research.
We all know that the brain is divided into areas, which live in certain conditions and thus we feel their effects.
Think about the feeling of joy, the euphoria, that the brain knows how to produce, if I told you that I could stimulate the same areas in you, so that you would feel these same sensations? (using drink or drug)
All these things that have been developed, like gambling, are in my opinion only a way to activate those areas of the brain that make us feel good ("feel good" in a very careless wording).
Regarding the second part you asked, it actually makes sense.
All these activities may contribute in the long run, but at that moment your body loses fluids, energy, muscles get tired, heart beats strongly..
Pay attention to all the animals in nature, they only exercise their bodies when they are looking for food, many, or they are small just playing.
We have all these things without moving from the couch, so why do I need to exercise?
This is where the matter of intelligence comes in.
Mental illnesses, in my opinion, arise from the complexity of the brain, I believe that dogs have fewer mental problems (although there definitely are).
Maybe I deviated a little from the idea you aimed at in the first place (I had a busy day).
Everything is here in a general way, if necessary I am ready to go into more details, it challenges the thinking 😉
I don't understand why people here talk about the Neanderthals as if we murdered them.
Several years ago it was proven that all humans outside of Africa have genes originating from Neanderthals (up to 6%, but still considering the fact that in the last 30,000 years there were no Neanderthals in the world, the fact that such a percentage has been preserved is amazing).
It makes more sense that the Neanderthals mixed with humans (because they lived in a harsher environment, probably their population was also smaller than the Homo sapiens that emerged from the warmer regions of the world) and disappeared as a separate species.
The masses of immigrants that emerged from Africa during the tens of thousands of years ensured that the majority of humans at that time were Homo sapiens.
Five fingers - I read something about it in Dawkins, or better chance in Gold; As far as I can remember it happened in our ancestors and it has remained that way ever since. I also remember from there that there was some repugnant or primitive reptile that actually had seven.
Israel Shapira,
Since you're not from Kal, your mind doesn't work like his. I don't hate them either, but believe that superstitions waste time, which is one of the more precious resources we have at our disposal.
Remembers also remembers the "profession". This is what keeps and strengthens me to this day in the difficult days of dyslexia attacks and school failures.
R. H.,
Come on! for sure! As usual, you save the day. How did I not think of this myself? Probably because we don't have any in Scotland
R.H. Rafai.M,
You are right that this is how things develop already with the fetus. I didn't think very deeply about a factor. This number is not really "holy", because there are animals that manage with less (when the rest exist but are degenerate) and I know one animal, the panda bear, that has a kind of sixth finger that functions as a toe. The idea occurred to me that it might be something arbitrary. That is, there was a five-toed creature that happened to survive for another reason. But last weekend I visited a nature museum and saw fossilized skeletons of marine and terrestrial dinosaurs there. I counted five toes on each foot and each fin. If it were accidental, it would not necessarily have survived so many tens of millions of years. I mean, the number five probably has a residual advantage: it is more efficient than small numbers and less cumbersome than large numbers, but I haven't come up with an exact idea...
jubilee
I thought you meant this story. Also here on the site, there are some snoozers who function perfectly up to a certain limit, and when the load increases they start to riot. In the original story the solution was to shoot the robot. Do you think it could work here too?
Although I am not religious, I have nothing against religion and religious people. The religious people I know are nice and balanced people and I am sometimes quite jealous of them for not having a simple and innocent faith like them.
And by the way, Asimov, remember the story "Professional" and the institute for mental rehabilitation?
What do you mean why 5 fingers?
How else would we get our foot into the VFF?
http://www.runningnut.com/vibram-five-fingers-review/
jubilee
Perhaps it is related to the geometry in which the molecules of the embryo develop? What idea did you think of?
It is also five for the hen and the cow. Even with the horse, although you only see one hoof. What you don't see, has simply degenerated over the ages.
And the Asimov story in question is Robot AL-76 Goes Astray. The robot in the story is designed to operate six robots, but only succeeds with five.
When I read "Host", my immediate association was the parasitic belief, read - religion. In your mind, it didn't even fly by?
jubilee
Write in Galileo? Am I crazy? Writing articles is such a tedious business.
And if I write, will anyone read? My comments are barely read by the scientist.
And if they call It will help? Certainly not to me. If you read what I wrote before, see what happened to the heroes of my stories. Poincare outwitted Boltzmann. Newton outwitted Leibniz. Godel, the priest of modern logic, the object of Einstein's admiration, outwitted himself. (All three of them, by the way, disappeared themselves).
And let's not go too far: see what they do to you for daring to write a few words outside the consensus.
(Obviously, if you prove your theory, you will become a consensus yourself. It didn't help Boltzmann, Cantor, and even the mythical Descartes. Parasitic reason ate them from the inside to the bone).
Except no one will print my bullshit.
Why five? I have no idea. I don't think he's a saint at all. It seems to me that it is different for a chicken (which eats semolina), and for a cow (which raises rumen). Maybe it just came out and that's it?
Grace.
I flow with you. What do you think is the reason why we (maybe not you, other people) choose food that we absolutely know is bad for us? alcohol? drugs? cigarettes? Gambling?
Why do we prefer to sit in front of the TV and eat pistachios instead of running or swimming? What is the cause of all mental illnesses? Or just idleness?
flow
Israel
She brought up this point more than once.
It's a bit hard for me to explain, but my feeling is that you have fixed yourself on the evolutionary way of thinking too much.
Quite a few other factors come into play here, related to the different ingredients, the different flavor extracts, and how they are distributed in nature.
In total, they are all substances of nature, and it may be that their effect in terms of health does not play such a central role in the way a person survives.
As the spider was killed at the end by the black widow, what evolutionary advantage does that have (maybe there is?).
How come he didn't develop some kind of defense mechanism at the turn, there must have been some that survived.. somehow..
Israel,
Why did you stop writing in Galileo?
Many articles have been and will be written about the subconscious.
Physiologically, evolution favors a double, symmetrical body. This is already manifested in arthropods if not before. We have two minds in one incarnation, and each one is almost completely autonomous. What one half of the brain "knows" to be true does not necessarily reflect the world view of the other half.
But I'm interested in something completely different. Maybe you know where the uniqueness of the number five comes from? The five fingers on each limb of all vertebrates (if you count my dog's nails you will only see four, but up his leg you will find another degenerated one). While The Simpsons has four, Seinfeld has five. It's not from today. Dinosaurs already had tools to count to five. And this is not unique to vertebrates; Crabs have five legs on each side. Do you remember an Asimov story that refers to something like this?
The comment is awaiting approval because of one word that was replaced here.
Israel,
Why did you stop writing in Galileo?
Many articles have been and will be written about the subconscious.
Physiologically, evolution favors a double, symmetrical body. This is already manifested in arthropods if not before. We have two minds in one incarnation, and each one is almost completely autonomous. What one half of the brain "knows" to be true does not necessarily reflect the world view of the other half.
But I'm interested in something completely different. Maybe you know where the "sanctity" of the number five comes from? The five fingers on each limb of כל Vertebrates (if you count my dog's nails you will only see four, but up his leg you will find another degenerated one). While The Simpsons has four, Seinfeld has five. It's not from today. Dinosaurs already had tools to count to five. And this is not unique to vertebrates; Crabs have five legs on each side. Do you remember an Asimov story that refers to something like this?
jubilee
In the original story Asimov used the phrase "parasitic intelligence". I didn't know he meant religion.
My question is simple: why do we want things we know are bad for us? cocaine? steak? Cookie?
Who is the boss here? After all, our consciousness only chooses things that are good for us. What is there that makes us exercise willpower at all, why don't we just want the sprouts, lettuce and carrots and that's it?
Are they just evolutionary remnants? A tendency to high-energy foods, to endorphins?
Or maybe there is something different here, and what seems like some other soul that is in us and makes us behave in a way that goes against our personal interests, is indeed such: parasitic intelligence.
The first computer viruses were hidden programs that would occasionally pop up and ask for a COOKIE. In order to be able to continue working with the computer, the operator had to print a COOKIE to kill the virus and continue working. Maybe this is what also explains our tendency towards cookies and not lettuce?
But he lacks our cruelty
It is very interesting to know how the Neanderthal man became extinct, he reached a stage where he developed relatively advanced tools.. They had the spear didn't they?
Ariel,
Your question, along with the mention of Neanderthal man, raises some grim reflections. Beyond the extinction of a beautiful culture at the hands of our ancestors comes the recognition that we are not in control, but the genome is the one that activates us. The phrase "the selfish gene", coined by the book bearing the same name, illustrates that the genome does not account for aesthetics or sublime values, but only for survival.
The question arises as to how, in this "evolutionary arms race", not a single prey has "developed" the required feature that is capable of dealing with the super predator? the reason?
There is the Neanderthal man who became extinct/assimilated.
Was he our prey? Or were we his prey?
I didn't want to draw fire, so I didn't call the parasite by name. In this story, Asimov clearly alludes to religion.
Israel
In certain tribes there were also cases where they ate the "witches".. Why waste good meat?
I checked the meme thing on the wiki. Yeah, that's pretty much the idea. But it is not explained there whether Dawkins' memes have their own agenda, which opposes that of the mind that hosts them, as bacteria and viruses do.
I was thinking more along the lines of Asimov's story "Hostess".
Israel,
M. Our Rothschild promotes and publicizes the Richard Dawkins memes. Just as there are genes that encode diseases (or disease carriers) so there are memes that encode, among other things, mental illnesses.
And just as there are symbiotic creatures (R.H., thank you), so also some of the products of memes exist alongside the human intellect and occasionally generate debates in the "demon-haunted country" style.
And what about the mosquito? The animal, especially the females that feed on the blood of mammals, kills over 3 million people a year with the diseases it transmits (and we did not talk about the amount of other animals that die as a result of these diseases). This is the deadliest predator to humans.
R.H.
When the Black Plague broke out, the reasons for it were visible and clear to anyone with eyes in their head:
1. We have sinned against God.
2. The Jews poisoned the wells.
3. The witches, where the blame can be hung, and they hang. (or burn or drown).
It took a while to get the idea that these are actually small, invisible animals making all the mess.
My question is if there isn't some finding that the same thing is admissible regarding the soul. And please don't turn to Israel with the definition of soul or mental illness - turn to Wikipedia. I don't think schizophrenia is a disease of the cecum.
Israel,
What is a soul? In my view, a soul is a phenotype that results from cell interactions such as skin color, movement speed, flight ability, or any other trait. I don't think it is fundamentally different from anything else the body exhibits except that it arises from enormous complexity and chaotic processes.
I see no difference between so-called mental illnesses and autoimmune diseases in which the immune system attacks the body, cancer in which the body's cells adapt out of control, or metabolic diseases in which the body's systems do not function well.
By the way, all of them can be primarily caused by the environment, i.e. viruses, toxic substances or bacteria.
Yigal c.
I don't think it is possible to conclusively state that bacteria or viruses are predators. Take the Ebola virus for example, to this day it is not known who is its host where it lives undisturbed. Its penetration into a person leads within a few days to the death of the person and immediately after to the destruction of the virus (if it was not able to infect further), so from the point of view of Ebola, penetration into a person is actually an "occupational accident".
In contrast, the influenza virus attacks, causes severe colds, coughing and sneezing that spread it everywhere, but it usually does not kill the host. Would you call him a predator?
Indeed for the time being, because it is interesting that despite two world wars and epidemics that killed millions, this is the century in which the human population has grown both in percentages and certainly nominally than any other century so far.
Not true, my father, the Great War and the influenza epidemic that followed did not thin out the population of the super-carnivore monkey sufficiently, and only the Second World War filled the gap (for the time being).
They did evolve, and also developed defenses.
Like the cats, they also lost the ability to hunt, and became more social
And they are also a source of bacteria that causes women to feed them.
In general, evolution does change, but in other directions.
200 thousand years is nothing, it is a transitional period
But before that there will be a collapse of 99% of the species
Man himself will also split into new species, through intervention in genetics.
A question for R.H.
What do you think about this possibility: just as diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses that are external parasites of the body, so mental diseases are actually a kind of parasites of the mind? And not just diseases. Even just traits in us that we are not interested in, such as a tendency to get angry, addictions, etc. Like computer viruses, which are actually external programming that works against the computer, so also everything that works in us against ourselves, against our will, is actually some idea that is implanted in our brains and we don't have the possibility to get rid of it?
If this is our body, and our soul, then who is the boss here?
Legal
1 - seems right to you,
2 - Note that there is a reference to the time when man appeared as a super predator, up to about 200 thousand years ago
He was not a super predator.
3 - The use of the term ("terminology") has been developed as accepted and widespread when it is clear to every writer and reader
Because "evolution does not have an absolute and voluntary direction", who would hang in the form of a formulation to dismiss a fact....
let him be perfumed,
4 – simply not true.... Have you heard of an "arms race" in nature?
5 - It turns out that in the case of the super predator, the prey are not agile enough.
6 - The biggest problem of our natural environment is that man cuts himself off from nature
Out of ignorance or any other negative creation you choose, a disconnection that progresses towards extinction.
R.H.
Bacteria and also viruses that use the victim's materials as building blocks for their reproduction are predators of anything and everything. Their profit is in the use they make of the victim's body as a platform for their reproduction and spread. The difference between them and parasites is that they use the body materials of the victim and this is the witness of his destruction.
Some mistakes and objections:
1. It seems to me that carnivores have existed on earth for more than 500 million years. Among the first replicators were those that utilized other replicating molecules as building materials and reproduction - that is, they preyed on them, not to mention single-celled and carnivorous plants that also appeared at an early stage.
2. Even earlier human species hunted, often very successfully. The problem related to us is our expansion and reproduction which causes a large consumption of game.
3. The use of terminology that includes words such as "keys" (traits) is wrong in my view, since it creates the impression that within the framework of evolution, organisms actively and deliberately produce features, and not it. Those for whom the theory of evolution is less than the best available explanation for the appearance of life and its development may misinterpret the expressions.
4. In the vast majority of cases, neither the prey nor the predators develop a trait that corresponds to the development of "improvement" in the opponent (ie the predator does not overcome improvement in the prey and vice versa). As a result, they are forced to change something (migrate to a different living environment, change their menu, etc.) in order to survive or they become extinct. The reason why a suitable trait does not develop is because there is no starting trait in the species' arsenal of mutations that can develop into a suitable new trait by way of natural selection.
5. Evolution sometimes works at a surprising speed and millions of years are not always necessary for traits suitable for new conditions to develop.
6. Man is not separated from nature, but is a part of it for all its flaws and artificial products. It is possible that the interaction between man and other factors in nature will lead to his extinction and/or the extinction of other animals and plants, but man's activity is also done within the framework of nature and its laws. The person can "consider" his environment, or not and the results will be accordingly. In this he differs from other creatures - he has the ability to decide on this.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in favor of the mass hunting or the destruction of the habitats, but I think that it is necessary to be precise when discussing such an issue (and any controversial issue) in order not to give opponents an opening here to divert the issue in unwanted directions due to inaccuracies.
Avi,
Regarding viruses and especially bacteria, the definitions are not so simple.
Predator - one creature benefits and the prey is destroyed
Parasite - one gains and the carrier loses
Symbiont - both creatures benefit from the relationship
Disease-causing bacteria do not fall neatly into any definition. It is not at all clear that the Streptococcus A (carnivore) bacterium that kills its host quickly "profits" from this. Ditto the Ebola virus or smallpox.
Not true Yuval, in the flu epidemic of 1918, immediately after World War I, more people died than in the war itself. Of course a predator can be more than 10 times smaller than the prey, viruses and bacteria are much smaller but just as deadly.
And without a predator above us, we also prey on ourselves. When the wars roar, the epidemics are silent...
Sometimes the poisonous creatures are actually sought out in order to use their poison. That is, the poison actually serves as a disadvantage for the prey
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda