Nature and evolution
Humans are not designed to be happy, or even content. Instead, we are designed primarily to survive and reproduce, like every other creature in the natural world. A state of contentment is discouraged by nature because it would lower our guard against possible threats to our survival.
The fact that evolution has prioritised the development of a big frontal lobe in our brain (which gives us excellent executive and analytical abilities) over a natural ability to be happy, tells us a lot about nature’s priorities. Different geographical locations and circuits in the brain are each associated with certain neurological and intellectual functions, but happiness, being a mere construct with no neurological basis, cannot be found in the brain tissue.
Because even when all our material and biological needs are satisfied, a state of sustained happiness will still remain a theoretical and elusive goal, as Abd-al-Rahman III, Caliph of Cordoba in the 10th century, discovered. He was one of the most powerful men of his time, who enjoyed military and cultural achievements, as well as the earthly pleasures of his two harems. Towards the end of his life, however, he decided to count the exact number of days during which he had felt happy. They amounted to precisely 14.
The Conversation
Rafael Euba - Humans aren't designed to be happy – so stop trying
You Aren't Built to be Happy | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-second-noble-truth/201907/you-arent-built-be-happy
Hi This Is Kiran Infertility Center(https://kiranivfgenetic.com )
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing information.
Humans are designed to seek pleasure - so stfu.
ReplyDeleteIf humans are designed then it would be wise to seek the Designer's Will? No?
ReplyDeleteBut be warned that 1/3 of the Angels rebelled so complacency is not a safe option.
Or would you play Russian Roulette with even 1 round in the cylinder? Much less 2 rounds in the cylinder?
The will of evolution is procreation.
ReplyDeleteAnti-natalists who dare to question that purpose, are wiped off the map.
Humans are designed to seek pleasure - so stfu.
ReplyDeleteNot my understanding. Like all sentient beings, humans are "designed" (anthropomorphism) to survive and reproduce. Pleasure-seeking and pain-avoidance are incentives, positive and negative, that drive the S-R mechanism.
(The prefrontal cortex was apparently developed to survive in a particular niche and humans explored and exploited the options it provides.)
Survival and reproduction is not all humans are capable of doing owing to more developed CNS and other hardware and software, but that is nature's bottom line. Humans are specialized animals that gives them greater degrees of freedom than other animals including other primates.
One thing that humans can do that other animals can't is to reproduce themselves socially through education and cultural transmission of knowledge and skill allowing them to build a knowledge-base in addition to individual memory. This increases the capability of the individual brain by orders of magnitude. Now digitization is extending that.
But the pandemic reminds us it is still chiefly about survival. Climate change will increase that realization in spades.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"designed" (anthropomorphism)
ReplyDeleteYou’re right it is... this is what their IDers don’t appear to understand....
BTW so is “copying errors” in genetics imo...
“But the pandemic reminds us it is still chiefly about survival.“
ReplyDeleteNot if this thing was created in a laboratory...
I think we can validly say that a system exhibits a system design and, if the system is functional one, whether the design is fit for purpose, without being excessively anthropomorphic or violating the anthropic principle.
ReplyDeleteSurvival of the fittest in evolutionary theory simply means fit for survival long enough to reproduce. Evolution favors survival traits that are passed on genetically.
Machines and organisms both exhibit design, but machines necessarily have intelligent designers but this does not extend to organisms other than metaphorically. Who or what is the designer of organisms? "Nature" as in "laws of nature."
What is "nature" in this sense? I lean toward David Bohm's "implicate order" explanation, which he set forth in Wholeness and the Implicate Order in terms of QM.
But neither Bohm nor his colleagues were able to formulated this conceptual model as a scientific theory in terms of mathematical model, data, and operational definitions that link model and data so as to enable testing the model against data.
As a result, the Copenhagen interpretation holds sway, which neither Einstein nor Bohm were satisfied with since it is stochastic rather than deterministic. But Einstein objected to Bohm's approach because it involves non-locality and Einstein was spooked by "spooky action at a distance."
Andrew and I responded to an absurd article, using its framing.
ReplyDeleteHumans seek pleasure, therefore they will find happiness as part of that endeavour.
The anthropomorphism of evolution is to be expected. Even atheists have a need to tell themselves stories. The author of this piece, may be psychologically deranged.
Tom, They all skip over purpose and creativity and go straight to design... this is never a good idea..,
ReplyDeleteDesign is way after you establish purpose and the creative processes... design is the last thing you do prior to start of manufacture.,,
If you dont get the first two right your design is not going to work... so we can see that with disease, mutation (“copying errors!”) , morons saying “we’re out of money!” , all sorts of things...