The divine anxiety

Perfect.

Notice how I never said anything of an opposite. (Besides asking if.)*

You’ve explained the positive and negative effect of light waves on itself.

(Btw, did you actually read this anti-light wiki article? Kind of science fictional. Though I am a fan of zombies)

The primary motive of religion of any format is evocative emotional control of perception.
The divine anxiety of life is effectively leveraging emotional control into a satisfactory emotional result in both quality and magnitude.

We, homo sapiens sapiens, did not have to have this, but we did increase our brain size due to a lack of jaw muscle and became capable of developing marked increase in empathetic and sympathetic emotional sensory which became incredibly gainful in growth and progression.
Part of that tax in this format is reverberation and excitement (literal meaning - as in particles).
Consequence of increased sensitivity to a new range of receiving reverberations and excitement of electrochemical subconscious sensations is a need for dissipation and recess, or there is a fallout of some form that will occur.

Religion, circling back to the first sentence, is primarily motivated by accessing a method of control of this regulation in some producible manner.

It can be used by the individual and of their own accord, or it can be used by others as a leverage of control over individuals for whatever means is seen of pursuit.
That is to say, it can be evoked by an internal motive entirely, or it may be evoked by a mixture of internal and external motives.

It also needs not be religious.
Self help is littered with attempts at offering similar controls.
Music can itself be another for a great deal of people.

However, religion is one fashion of this medium.
It is also the most mature of the systems and this is possibly why it remains so prominently.
It has been around for such a considerable length more, which allows for humanity to layer and layer the complex articulations of the tool sets involved in the medium.

That is what humans do best; we build upon what we have before built.
We increase the articulation of what we have had before by adding unto it a greater depth, diversity, or efficiency.

Had we started some of the modern self help concepts seven thousand years ago, then it would be equally as functionally embedded into our socioeconomic culture as religion is today.

Perhaps with the extra sensitivity of the modern brain, we equally ‘needed’ some manner of basis for thinking like that, and that’s where religion comes into it. I think humans generally have this perception which requires a manner of fulfilment, it drives us on all manner of quests for truth and meaning in our lives.
To accompany that the brain has this ’god-helmet’ ability to produce internal imagery and meaning, and present it as if outside ~ as like we experience one another. In one of my visions the imagery was perfectly described in the Egyptian book of the dead ~ which I had never read or heard of at the time, and it wasn’t a common image. Hence I think there is more to it than simply the brain being a composer of realities.

Indeed I’ll go on to say that there is something outside of us to wit such visions and poetry etc react. The world is the composer, the brain a player in the orchestra.
Or to put it another way, the brain develops and extend according to what’s out there!

Something like this…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178019
:slight_smile:

_

I tend to see it as this:
Giraffes don’t need the long necks to reach the tree leaves.
Their long necks ended up being a mutation which conveniently allowed for reaching the tree leaves.
Or:
Humans don’t need ground for walking.
Humans don’t have legs that need fulfillment of walking.
But because we have legs as we do, we can walk on the ground.

We don’t have a perception which requires a manner of fulfillment.
We have a brain which articulates an acumen in a multidimensional (not meaning physics; dimension as in form) range of sense, assessment, and response to a great caliber in inherent problem solving and long view causal sequencing with an interest towards utilitarian value beyond other great apes.

I wouldn’t say that truth seeking is a requirement.
More so a consequence.

Hmm maybe, but I don’t think we got bigger brains because we simply grew them anyways for no reason [genetic mutation or whathaveyou], we got them because the former brain detected a need which was later fulfilled. The giraffe did require longer necks due to competition on the lower leaves, I expect that many animals stretched to reach the lush green leaves, then as the giraffe gained the advantage other animals have greater access to the lower leaves ~ as the giraffe was now eating the higher ones.

Creatures are extremely sensitive machines! We cannot ignore that we live in an informational universe, and that creatures will desire ever more access to that as they develop. Knowing more gains the advantage in many cases I’d think.

I did I LMAO. Uncyclopaedia is cool, shame the comedians don’t get paid for there services to disinformation. :laughing:

No.
It quite literally occurred as a result of having a weaker jaw muscle, which occurred due to a mutation in some hominids, whereby the MYH16 gene had a mutation that caused that gene to not function.

The primary result is that the masseter and temporalis are greatly reduced in size from our earlier fossil examples of other hominids (or present other great apes).
Here’s the muscle set on us.

And because it’s nearly a wafer size by comparison, while we grow, our skulls are not restricted in volume due to an overlapping muscle.
See the differences of skull impressions here:


That ridge (6) is the dividing point between the two temporalis muscles which literally draw forcibly down upon the skull as leverage.

It wasn’t an advantage that our brains aimed for.
Just as the fly does not exist as a pest to humans so that humans may learn patience.

A mutation happened, it could have sucked, but it became a dominant genetic trait that passed in two pair carries into the offspring, and arrived on the scene when hominids appear to have been at a higher peak of interbreeding between varying hominids.
…which may very well have consequently caused the mutation to begin with.

Note…this did not mean that we could articulately speak in language yet.
That came later with yet another gene mutation.

This sounds controversial? Do you have any decent links to this idea or is it one of your own. Probably cooler if its one of your own, but evolution is never pinned down a simple phenotype like that, there are always other factors in play…

Sure, it was published in Nature, but here’s a link to a free spot of the pdf.
sapientfridge.org/chromosome_cou … tation.pdf

Neanderthals apparently had larger brain cavities [and hence brains one would assume] than us but were not as intelligent. This is not my area of expertise but things generally evolve according to conditions not randomly? Mutations, so I am told never just happen, they are stimulated by something or at least they are so miniscule that they don’t make a negative difference [or are otherwise destroyed in due course].

As far as I can tell we first get changes in the epigenetics, which if they last over a long period of time [it takes something like 300 years to see genetic changes in human terms] make effect in the core/main genes. Epigenetics are changed ancestrally and have been seen to pass from generation to generation, usually are peculiar to given skills or cultures [not racial ones].

Here we are putting the universe of information to one side as if its all physics and biology, I truly don’t think we can do that! Information communicates and makes measurable changes.

Thanks, I’ll read it when I have more time, currently watching a film.

Most interesting thing I’ve read in weeks though, you know how it is curiosity and all.

That’s not entirely accurate.
Adaptive genetic trade-off works that way, but not mutated.
Mutations work by countless (figuratively) variables; not environmentally retained.
What permits the continuance of the mutation is:
A) the animal survives to breed
B) the gene does not recede through breeding; especially if it dominates other potentials

If those exist, then a practical application of the end result of the genetic mutation may occur if applicable.
Meaning, if the first “giraffe” lives and breeds, then if there are trees around with which it can reach that other animals in its pool cannot, then it will retain an advantage useful.
As such, it will be more likely to survive.
As such, more likely to pass that dominant gene onward (providing it is dominant).

There is no known environmental provocation for the MYH16 gene mutation outside of a hypothesis that notes that it occurred in time around the same time as inter-hominid breeding; which may have produced the mutation.
The end result was a hominid that could not fight and dominate in the same fashion as its surrounding hominids (biting), nor eat the same diet strictly as the other hominids in the same fashion (using teeth and biting to tear and shred through).

Just as simply as the currently known three generation family that has a high number of its family members with mutations to the FoxP2 gene (which is responsible for neurologically controlling the muscle articulation for functional speech) and thereby have radical impairments to speech (you can barely grasp what they are attempting to speak though they have no mental deficiencies and are “normal” in every other respect) are not having this mutation due to the gene determining a demand that it is attempting to supply progressively.

This mutation wasn’t generated by a demand of anything.
And hopefully, it won’t convey as a dominant gene which spreads beyond their family (it’s unlikely to, but hey…never know).

The viewpoint you are speaking of is the most common vantage by which arguments against evolution are based on, and is a misrepresentation of how gene mutation passing is attributed in evolution.
The genes don’t “know” what needs to come about next to gain an advantage.

In the same way that, again, the fly isn’t a pest to humans so that humans can learn patience.
The genes survive if the whole survives and the gene is a dominant gene (and commonly found in two pair - meaning both parents had the gene).

Oh, and regarding Neanderthals:
From what science has been able to determine (through genetics tracing) the Neanderthal separation from our common ancestor was somewhere in the ballpark of 300,000 to 400,000 (some debate other ranges as well) years ago.
The MYH16 gene is factored into occurring to the ballpark of 2.5 to 5 million years ago (I favor the 2.5/3 million year range due to the skull differences and time-lines between A. afarensis and H. erectus: but that’s just my opinion and not something I can stand firmly behind with any evidences).

The Neanderthals did not have a double concaved skull.
Their skull was similar to ours in regards to roundness.
Neanderthals are quite simply (yet loosely speaking) giant variants of homo sapiens sapiens.

We are not yet entirely certain what happened that caused their extinction (as is true with all of our relatives akin to being runner-up’s for the single surviving human species [we could have easily had 5 or more species kicking it around on this planet side-by-side with us right now btw; we’re still trying to determine why these other entirely separate cousins died out completely])

Wow I love this discussion of light and dark and opposites. I think that the reality is that light and dark are nothing but directional opposites. Meaning that the darkess is nothing but the light moving away from me. Our eyes are limited in that they can only see light that is colliding head on with them. Have you ever looked out at the horizon at night and wondered why I see the tiny light of a far off star instead of all the sunlight that is flowing in between. I don’t see the sunlight because it is flowing at a ninety degree angle to my eyes and that is beyond their limitation to see. I see the sunlight because it is colliding head on with my pupils. The reality is that the same sunlight is flowing past the horizon during the night as during the day. Light and dark are the same energy just as good and evil are the same energy. The only thing that separates them is our perspective on the energy and our limitations as humans.

This talk of brains is irrelevant.

A mouse knows the same basic fundamentals as a human. We are just able to deduct farther then first process understanding.
(Who’s to say homo-sapiens will out do modern man in their environment, or vise verse.)
Hence, the inner working of the brain are the design for its outcome. Achilles Heel…

The point of the brains was a tangent derived from describing that religion is a consequence of our specific sensory facilitation and the moderating control over the frequency and magnitude for the processing of emotional perception of existential identity and inductive supposition of its inherent personality; or said, general markup of emotional expectations of experiential exchanges.

In other words, we’re really smart hominids that have to attend to a far higher range of utilitarian deductive empathy.
Tell a cuckoo bird to have a heart sometime.
You don’t need a gas regulator if there’s no gas.

We have an entirely unique sensory that doesn’t even exist in a directly physical plane of perception.
All simply because we have a subconscious sensitivity to precognitive, and thereby sub-lexical, inputs and processing of information that communicates on a cellular exchange rate of information, which then translates to electrical pulse relatives of the same information.

Or…we are natural analog to digital processors and converters.

That’s why the brain showed up in the conversation.

A squirrel knows where to find its nuts, because its necessary for survival. We just adapted to plant the nut tree.
I know why brain showed up in the conversation, I was just saying how unnecessary it was.

It may seem that way, but the fact of just how radically impactful our sense of emotion and the control therein are, both subconsciously and consciously, is often completely overlooked because most people take the emotional range of humans (which includes an impressive range beyond any other species on the planet) for granted; even though this sensory magnification in humans mixed with our manner of processing identity (not just our own, but of any given thing - to include concepts) is the single elegant difference between a human trusting their reality as real and not trusting their reality as real.

It is directly related to the OP’s discussion of suffering:

In which the tangent explains the divine anxiety of push and pull, or the pursuit of the balance thereof, is a direct analog metaphor of a literal sensory application within our biology which does contain within it a form of “stress” by consequence of the function.

There are insects which have ‘mutated’ and evolved to a specific tree, I would think of such mutations as a kind of ‘amorphous searching’ [or fluid change] of conditions and growth according to requirements. Further up the evolutionary tree the way animals think and react can also make a difference [in epigenetics], cultures can be arrived at e.g. like the monkey which has learned to crack open shellfish on a rock. Such things are not initially genetic but become genetic if kept up for long enough.

Sure but a giraffe is not arrived at in one go, there would be a very long period of change with the neck getting longer with each generation continuing the advantage in tiny increments ~ probably hundreds or thousands of generations.

Interesting. Seems a bit strange that you get a less able [in the former sense] hominid from the mix and not just another variation of the same ilk. Perhaps it has more to do with tool usage and hence differing hunting techniques. Again none of this would have occurred overnight, the MYH16 mutation [or transformation resultant of many smaller mutations] may have resulted from the weaker but slightly more intelligent hominid, having to find a way to survive beyond what its predecessors had achieved.

I thought I wasn’t arguing against evolution, so perhaps I should just butt-out here. I am going by previous debates where people made arguments against mutations being the primary factor ~ that is without the environment determining what mutations are successful.

The first image looked like a modern human so I assumed you were talking about a far more modern change in the brain, sorry.

Could you sum up where you are going with this in relation to the thread? Seems to be an argument based on genetic change without environmental influence [your suggestion], or genetic change ‘with’ environmental influence [my position]. As I say creatures are very sensitive to their environments and that would surely have an effect upon how successful they are at running away or hunting.

Dear Quetalcoatl, I think you on the verge of a great awakening in your apprciation of God. The question I would like to ask is why do you limit God? Who are you to say what God can or cannot be? Throw away what others have told you must be and what do you see?

No I’m not, been there got the t-shirt. :slight_smile: I’d ask you in return; why do you limit god, ~ the very idea [god] is a limitation.