The Evolution Of Human Consciousness

[URF8]

Human consciousness is different than human intelligence. The latter is a matter of biochemistry, anatomy and physical evolution. That subject is beyond my understanding. But anyone interested in the subject of the evolution of human intelligence might want to check out Carl Sagan's 1977 book The Dragon's Of Eden. It's a good read and won the Pulitzer Prize.

There have been a number of species of hominids that have had some measure of intelligence. Our own species is like the last man standing. Our intellectual capabilities have remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years, or so I have read. The evolution of human consciousness is, in my view, a matter of the change and adaptation of existing intellectual capabilities based on perception and experience.

According to my understanding cannibalism was once not uncommon in human societies around the world. I'm not talking about cannibalism for survival in exigent circumstances. I'm referring to the cultural practice of cannibalism. With the possible exceptions of Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya I am not aware of any human society that currently observes cannibalism as a cultural norm. How did these many human societies over time come to the conclusion that such norms were wrong? I don't know.

Similarly many societies from the middle east to mesoamerica practiced human sacrifice for centuries. Mexica/Aztec theology was based on massive human sacrifice. Have you seen Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto? The practice of human sacrifice as shown in the movie is based on historical fact.

Have you ever read James Michener's book The Source? Among other things, the book uses the historical fiction genre to explore the religious practice of human sacrifice among ancient societies in the Levant. It was in this book that first encountered the god Baal who demanded the sacrifice of children.

I understand the rise of monotheism among the Hebrew descendants of Abraham and the eventual displacement of Baal, Dagon, Ishtar, et al. But what was it that led to the leap of consciousness that human sacrifice was wrong? Do you remember the Old Testament story of Abraham and the intervention of the angel sent by Yahweh to stay Abraham's hand before he could bring the knife down on his son? The story reflects a change in human perception...a change in consciousness. Why did that happen?

The same is true of the practice of human slavery. The trans-Atlantic slave trade came to an end because of a change in consciousness among those who ruled the British Empire. As a result of the control of the seas by the Royal Navy these people were able to impose their will on the trans-Atlantic slavers. What accounts for this change in consciousness? Was it a change in the interpretation of scripture? Did perception change as a result of the European Enlightenment? I don't know?

The pattern is repeated with the ideas of racial equality, gender equality, sexual orientation, disarmament, dietary practices, and even environmentalism before it became quasi-religious and quasi-corporate. What changes in consciousness might the future bring? I don't know. And what, if any, are the limitations on the evolution of human consciousness on both the societal and individual levels? I have many questions, but few answers.

One thing I do know is that it is possible for individuals to recognize the existence of a higher level of consciousness without being able to embrace it. The old bull Cape Buffalo gazes across the river, sees that the grass is greener on the other bank, but knows it can never cross the river. The river is full of crocodiles.

[Chris]

Excellent, thoughtful post!

I'll reply in only the broadest of strokes with thoughts that come to mind...

I would like to suggest one change in man from tribalism to individualism that I think plays into most of what you write. Popper discusses the political aspects of this in The Open Society and Its Enemies, James Q. Wilson some moral aspects in The Moral Sense. Briefly, under tribalism, man is defined by the tribe, the collective--the state if you will in modern times--while under individualism out of individual interaction emerge the tribe, the collective--the state if you will--as well as the economy and other social institutions and traditions. Man is of course both, just a different emphasis, focus, direction, just as no one is a pure classical liberal, which is individualistic, or a pure modern liberal, which is, imo, tribalistic. --I think we are also, at least politically, shifting back toward tribalism, individualism may have only a brief flash in the pan that got us briefly out of the Malthusian Trap.

So what caused this early evolutionary change? Well, man's brain had to evolve in terms of being able to reason, and reason about himself--see The seat of meta-consciousness in the brain (http://www.mpg.de/5925490/meta-consciousness-brain) or Exploring the edge of consciousness (http://ronbc.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/exploring-the-edge-of-consciousness/). These are capabilities man can probably never perfect, thus the greener pasture of idealism.

Other causes stem from that, man's ability to manipulate his environment through technology, the division of labor that led to capitalism, and so on.

[URF8]

Chris,

I think there's a lot of truth in what you've posted. The interaction of physiology and consciousness leaves me awestruck trying to comprehend.

I wonder if the movement from tribalism to individualism isn't exclusively a function of Western civilization. Traditional Han Chinese culture generally divides reality into two philosophies, viz., Confucianism and Taoism. Confucianism in very general terms applies to external reality while Taoism provides inner guidance.

Externally, the Han are still tribal and will probably always be so. Nevertheless, they reached many of the same conclusions about reality as Western scholars, but through a different process of reasoning.

I find your observation that there is possibly a reemergence of tribalism in post-modern liberalism in the West to be true. It's quite clear that America is breaking up into different tribes. That means inevitably that shared consciousness and shared interpretations of reality are breaking down.

There are many aspects of leftist ideology that strike me as having some kernel of truth. However, my rage at leftism prevents me from accepting them. I am like the old bull Cape Buffalo who can't cross the river.

Have you ever heard of Integral Theory?
http://dialogue4health.com/pdfs/3_18_09/E_H_Overview-IT.pdf

[Chris]

Interesting thought that if individualism is just western then it's tribal, an aberration, an evolutionary dead end perhaps.

Yet as you point out Toaism especially is very individualistic. Rothbard saw Toaists as the first libertarians, "who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society", while the Legalists were statists and Confucians in between. "To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its 'laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,' was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and 'more to be feared than fierce tigers.'" (Libertarianism in Ancient China (http://mises.org/daily/3903))

My experiences in Japan says that while society exerts a strong structural influence the individual is free within those constrains, with government a minor component.

I'll have to read that link on Integral Theory.

[URF8]

Interesting thought that if individualism is just western then it's tribal, an aberration, an evolutionary dead end perhaps.

Yet as you point out Toaism especially is very individualistic. Rothbard saw Toaists as the first libertarians, "who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society", while the Legalists were statists and Confucians in between. "To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its 'laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,' was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and 'more to be feared than fierce tigers.'" (Libertarianism in Ancient China (http://mises.org/daily/3903))

My experiences in Japan says that while society exerts a strong structural influence the individual is free within those constrains, with government a minor component.

I'll have to read that link on Integral Theory.

You're pretty knowledgeable about the East. That's unusual for an American.

[Chris]

Discovered Buddhism around 3rd, 4th grade--not a Buddhist though. Lived in Japan for 6 years. Both long stories.


Re Integral Theory, it's seems to be a system of categorization along two dimensions, interior vs exterior and individual vs collective, within which to place difference aspects of...being.

http://i.snag.gy/8jzW7.jpg

Not sure interior vs exterior are the right terms, for somehow the brain ends up exterior when, on my view, at least, out of the complex dynamical interaction of neurons, glial cells, etc emerges cognition, emotion, etc. Perhaps substituting physical for exterior and metaphysical for interior would work.

[URF8]

The interplay of cognition and emotion makes us human imo. Without cognition we might as well be reptiles. Without emotion we would not be uniquely human.

Yet it seems to me that emotion acts in some ways like a sea anchor in that it prevents some people like myself from moving on to acceptance of another stage of consciousness.

The Thirty Years War was a uniquely bloody affair. It wiped out one out of every three people in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. But the experience did lead to the realization in Western civilization that imposing one's win on others for religious purposes was a doomed enterprise.

The Peace of Westphalia that ended that war was the conceptual basis for creation of the modern nation-state. I wonder if there is a consciousness that the nation-state may ultimately go the way of the dinosaurs as a basis for political organization.

[Mister D]

Similarly many societies from the middle east to mesoamerica practiced human sacrifice for centuries. Mexica/Aztec theology was based on massive human sacrifice. Have you seen Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto? The practice of human sacrifice as shown in the movie is based on historical fact.



Gibson seems to have conflated Maya and Aztec practices. Enjoyable movie though.

How did these societies come to the conclusion that certain practices, such as human sacrifice, are wrong? More often than not, they didn't. A dominant culture either destroyed or transformed the cultures that engaged in such practices. I'm not sure why you call these changes "leaps of consciousness" as if Man is progressing to some idealized form. Surely modern man is capable of equal if not greater "barbarism" than his forebears.

[Chris]

URF8, I recently started listening to the Brain Science Podcast apparently in reverse because today's was BSP 67: Thomas Metzinger explores Consciousness (http://www.podcast.com/Science-and-Medicine/Medicine/I-64977.htm). You might find it interesting.

[URF8]

Gibson seems to have conflated Maya and Aztec practices. Enjoyable movie though.

I used the example of mesoamerica and human sacrifices to establish the existence of the practice. I did not mean to infer that a change in consciousness led to the termination of the practice. If you feel I did, I apologize.


...I'm not sure why you call these changes "leaps of consciousness" as if Man is progressing to some idealized form...

I did not use a reference to "leaps of consciousness." Throughout the OP I referred to a "change in consciousness." I don't know how these changes occurred, and I am not suggesting that progression is either happening or possible.



Surely modern man is capable of equal if not greater "barbarism" than his forebears.
I agree. However, it is unlikely that there will be a return to cannibalism or human sacrifice. Slavery on the otherhand many reemerge.

[URF8]

URF8, I recently started listening to the Brain Science Podcast apparently in reverse because today's was BSP 67: Thomas Metzinger explores Consciousness (http://www.podcast.com/Science-and-Medicine/Medicine/I-64977.htm). You might find it interesting.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out.

[Mister D]

I used the example of mesoamerica and human sacrifices to establish the existence of the practice. I did not mean to infer that a change in consciousness led to the termination of the practice. If you feel I did, I apologize.

Understood. I was just answering the question you posed.



I did not use a reference to "leaps of consciousness." Throughout the OP I referred to a "change in consciousness." I don't know how these changes occurred, and I am not suggesting that progression is either happening or possible.

You said:


But what was it that led to the leap of consciousness that human sacrifice was wrong?





I agree. However, it is unlikely that there will be a return to cannibalism or human sacrifice. Slavery on the otherhand many reemerge.

It's unlikely now but who knows.

[Chris]

Evolution, even of consciousness, is not progressive.

[URF8]

Understood. I was just answering the question you posed.


You said:






It's unlikely now but who knows.

I'm such a screwball I have to ask for your indulgence.