 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 3: The Human BrainIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
There are a few basic points to be made, and understood, here before going proceeding any further. They are simple - but fundamental and very important. It is a grave error to differentiate between a baby born today and a baby born five hundred, or two thousand, or five thousand years ago. They are all born knowing nothing of the world. It is easy to be led to the false conclusion that modern babies are smarter because they will end up using computers, watching television, and perhaps even eventually walking on Mars. But even on this earth today (January 2002) babies will be born into tribes which have many many varied beliefs of one type or another, and many varied apparent levels of intelligence, sophistication and culture. Pick a baby born today from the most ‘advanced’ tribe and put bem in a tribe in a jungle somewhere far removed from ‘civilisation’ and be will not grow up wondering where bes computer is. Be will not spend time looking around in the jungle for bes mobile phone. Be will not know that the sun is a huge mass of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. Be will have the beliefs and the knowledge belonging to that tribe in which be grew up. This example can be ‘translated’ to the comparison of a baby born today with a baby born in a different time period in the past. This follows from the previous paragraph. What is believed in, by the baby, is not related to the objective truth or reality of those beliefs. In other words, a baby born into an ‘educated’ family will be brought up believing that the earth is round and that the sun is the centre of our solar system, whereas a baby born into the family in the jungle may be brought up believing that the earth is flat, on the back of a turtle, and that the sun is a god. If those babies were switched at birth they would end up believing in their new alternate tribal beliefs. Whether the earth is flat or not is not relevant as to whether it is believed to be so. Thus the intelligence of the baby who believes that the earth is flat is no different to the baby who believes that the earth is round. The belief that the earth is round just happens to be true (I think!), that is all. The nature of the belief (the act of believing), and the nature of the acquisition of those beliefs, is the same in both cases. Each baby is as certain that their beliefs are true. That is the nature of ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. Logically we can understand that evolution requires a long period of time for any significant change to take place. To even consider that humans have evolved in any appreciable way over, for example, five thousand years is totally ridiculous, and deserves nothing but contempt, and merely displays a complete lack of rational thought. In most cases, if not all, major evolutionary changes take place as a result of major changes in climate, thus causing major changes in natural occurring resources available at any point in time, thereby giving free rein to the natural genetic mutations which takes place which, without that dramatic climatic change, would find no new environmental ‘niche’ in which to take root and grow. Physically, on a trivial level, we may change, ie we may grow taller due to better diet, but a major change eg a change in our nature, would need a vast length of time and would mean, in effect and fact, an actual new species, as such. So, no more irrational and stupid thoughts that we are better now than our ancestors - those notions are totally incorrect and only go to confirm the irrationality of the species. To animals without awareness, or self-consciousness, the natural events which affect them are taken for granted - no questions are asked as regards the nature of rain, the sun, the stars, the growth of trees and their subsequent fruit, the nature of what the other animals are, etc. These phenomena may appear strange to the animal depending on how often they occur but yet always remain unquestioned. But to this new species, humans, with self-awareness (the only one major difference between us and the other species which inhabit this earth), these natural events were a mystery. It is very difficult for us now to comprehend in any real manner just how strange, and wondrous, these natural phenomena were initially perceived to be. The fact is that humans, at some stage in the past, having just gained the spark of self-awareness would have found everything strange and wondrous. The fact that a bright object was moving overhead which gave heat and light must have been seen as a totally inexplicable but wondrous and astonishing sight; together with the fact that when it disappeared there was darkness and cold. Yet today we take it for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt, so they say. Most of these natural phenomena are not seen as mysteries anymore - they are taken for granted now, and there are explanations which have evolved throughout the ages which are accepted - though it is only the few who can actually explain most natural phenomena. But the important point to understand is the method by which humans answer, or explain these natural phenomena. It is certainly not the case that humans will say, ‘I will just stop asking these questions or investigating until I have the capability and knowledge to explain this (or that) phenomenon’. That is not how the ‘brain’ of a human works. We always try to fabricate an explanation. We always try to ‘make up’ an explanation that fits. Then we usually hold on to this explanation as if our very lives depended on it until a time when that explanation is smashed and disproved and cannot be held anymore. It is more a case of ‘the desire to fill a void in our understanding’, rather than ‘the desire to actually understand’. To demonstrate let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine you are sitting in a room. A white mist suddenly starts gathering in the middle of the room and begins to form a column. It then begins to move towards you and remains in front of you for a minute or two. Then it moves towards the door and slowly seeps out under the door. The room is then empty - apart from you! So what would you think. Would you say to yourself - ‘I don't know what that was’ and accept that explanation, or would you automatically presume that it was a ghost, despite the fact that you don't know if there is an afterlife; despite the fact that you don't know whether people can exist in that afterlife; despite the fact that you don't know whether people from that afterlife can actually ‘come back’ from that afterlife and appear to people; despite the fact that you don't know why anyone from the afterlife should want to appear in a room and then disappear. Yet many would presume that it was a ghost. It is our nature to ‘make guesses’ - to ‘fill holes’ in our explanation of everything. That was how we invented the concept of god; that was how we invented the explanations of everything we see and experience. We can never ‘know’ that these explanations are incorrect until they have been ‘proven’ to be incorrect. In other words once you have come to the conclusion that the ‘entity’ was a ghost it is then up to someone else to PROVE otherwise. There is another aspect to human knowledge, which I've partly covered in the previous subsection, and that is how we are able to accept that there are explanations of natural phenomena without ever actually knowing or understanding those explanations at all! Today, among most modern ‘tribes’ we can say - ‘we know that the sun is not god’ - but how do we know that? Do we know that? The interesting question here is not ‘has an explanation been given which explains the sun’ but rather, ‘how many people actually know what the sun is - how it works etc’ and the answer to that is that few - very few - actually know the ‘information’. In other words most people would not be able to explain how the sun emits light and heat, and how it ‘moves across the sky’. All they know is that ‘it has been explained’ (by someone) and therefore they know that it is not a mystery. That level of ‘understanding’ is equivalent, as regards intelligence, to the ‘belief’ of a member of an ‘un-technical’ tribe in some darkest jungle that the sun is a god. In most cases this level of ‘understanding’ of nature (the sciences etc) is the norm. It is accepting the perceived ‘fact?’ that someone else has explained it. Although I know that the sun is a mass of hydrogen (for the most part) undergoing fusion (the joining of atoms to form heavier atoms - opposite to fission, the splitting of the atom) but the fact is I am only accepting the explanation of others. Admittedly this explanation makes sense to me (although if you look around you you should easily be able to see that a flat earth also makes sense! - making sense does not guarantee objective truth) but still the fact remains that I am accepting that explanation. I cannot know the reason for the sun and its behaviour, yet I do not see it as being a mystery. This is how humans acquire knowledge. Someone makes up an explanation and then if that is accepted it then becomes our subjective truth. Any person questioning the accepted truth is seen as stupid and a ‘trouble maker’. Any minor ‘weakness’ found in the explanation is incorporated into the explanation, thereby modifying the explanation to ‘fit around’ the obstacle, until a critical point is reached when a new explanation is unavoidable and thus is accepted. A generation later anyone who doesn't ‘believe’ in that new explanation, or questions that new explanation is considered a fool - not as bright as the ‘us’ who ‘know’ the answer. This not only applies to tribal and natural beliefs, but also to all the academic and scientific beliefs. This is how human beings deal with explanations of the outside world. Thus, despite how unintelligent we are, we are lead to believe we are very intelligent and creative. Why? Because, for example, we have used our ‘intelligence’ to build a machine to actually take us as far as the moon. Surely that makes us an intelligent species? The very simple question to follow that is this - how many people today know how to get the correct mixture of fuel ingredients to create enough trust to propel a machine into space? What material is required for the spacesuits; for the visors; for the breathing apparatus; for the communications; etc. So although the feat (no pun intended) of humans walking on the moon is, in itself, astounding, the fact is that this does not demonstrate that we are an intelligent species. At times we may give the appearance of being intelligent but that is merely an impression, a very feeble impression which only irrational bioents would take as proving any actual intelligence! (Assigning a trait of a few individuals to the whole species is equivalent to believing that every person is a great artist because Leonardo da Vinci was an artist!). Perhaps there have been a few intelligent humans but that does not make the species intelligent! And, more importantly, ‘technical’ intelligence does NOT indicate ‘objective’ intelligence. The following scenario (fictitious situation) demonstrates the fundamental truth as regards human ‘traits’ and their objective truth and value. It is difficult to choose a figure, or example, which will be universally understood and recognised. The most suitable which comes to mind is the Pope - the head of the Roman Catholic Church (from now on I will leave out the word ‘Roman’ for clarity), or you could choose your own religious figurehead, for that matter. (In some cases below the word ‘would’ could be replaced by the word ‘could’, and although this may give the impression of weakening the argument is actually does not). In this scenario on the day the Pope was conceived the embryo was removed and cells, from that embryo, were used to ‘create’ clones (exact replicas, or copies) of the Pope. These cloned cells were then implanted in women all over the world, in all the differing cultures, tribes and nations. The clone which was implanted in a woman from the Palestinian occupied territories would grow up learning the Arab traditions - Islamic traditions and would be a Moslem, presumably with great animosity towards the Jewish people who have taken away the birthright and homelands of his people. He would think like a Moslem; he would think like a Palestinian; he would talk like a Palestinian. He would want his homelands to be taken from the Israelis and returned to the Palestinians. This would be justice in his eyes. He might even justify the terrorist attacks on the Israelis. He would have the morals, culture and values of his community. This would define what, and who he is and also define how to behave so as to be judged the decent and civilised individual he is - among his own people. This would be his ‘reality’. This would be his ‘truth’. He would be proud to be a Palestinian and a Moslem. The clone which was implanted in a Jewish woman living in Israel would grow up learning the Jewish traditions. He would be a Jew. He would think like a Jew, talk like a Jew, dress like a Jew. He would have the morals and values of a Jew. He would be able to justify the taking of the Palestinian territories and the expansion of the Jewish communities. He would be able to justify the reprisals against the Palestinians. He would not consider the Palestinians as equals. He would have the morals, culture and values of his community. This would define what, and who, he is and also define how he should behave so as to be judged as being the decent and civilised individual which he is - among his own people. This would be his ‘reality’. This would be his ‘truth’. He would be proud to be an Israeli and a Jew. He would condemn the Catholic religion for its treatment of, and hostility towards, the Jews (due to historical religious reasons - a few Jews put Jesus Christ - the physical representation of the Catholic god - to death, and the Jews, as a race, have been blamed since then). The clone which was implanted in a woman belonging to the Free Presbyterian Church (a Protestant religious offshoot which is highly fundamentalist - dogmatic - in its nature) in the north of Ireland would grow up learning the Protestant traditions. He would be a Protestant. He would think like a Protestant; would talk like a north of Ireland Protestant; and, for the most part, would consider himself a British citizen (for this example, the north of Ireland can be considered a British colony, as such, for expediency) and would not see the Catholics who also inhabit the north of Ireland (and consider themselves as being Irish), as being equal. He could grow up with vile hatred towards the Irish and towards the Catholic religion, including a practically demented contempt for the Pope and his position. He would consider his traditions and culture as being civilised and decent and would consider the culture and traditions of the Catholic community in the north of Ireland as being backward and partly idolatry. He would have great pride in being British. These would be his ‘truths’. This would be his ‘reality’. The clone which was implanted in a woman belonging to the north of Ireland Catholic community would grow up learning the Catholic and Irish traditions. He would think like a Catholic; talk like a north of Ireland Catholic; and, for the most part, consider himself an Irish citizen. He would consider the British tradition and culture as being totally foreign and alien. He would consider the Pope to be the legitimate head of the Catholic Church. He may even consider some terrorist actions against the Protestants and British people as being acceptable. There could be many other variations to this scenario. If he was born into the Arab traditions, in many Middle-Eastern countries he might well consider the United States of America as being a selfish aggressive superpower - an evil entity. Whereas, on the other hand, if he was born into a family in the USA he might well consider America to be the greatest example of how a decent democratic civilised society should be created and governed; also, depending where in America he grew up, he might consider Blacks, or Mexicans, or native American Indians as not being equal. If born into a family in Australia he may well consider the Aborigines as not being equal, and not deserving of equal rights. Likewise his attitudes would be totally different if he was born into a Mexican, or Serbian, or British, or Pakistan, or Indian, or South African family and tradition. The true terminology used to describe the Pope should be that he HAPPENS to be a Catholic. It is merely a matter of chance. Not only could one take into consideration the variables in physical (or geographic) place, or even just the national (or tribal) tradition of upbringing, but one could also investigate the variables in time alone. One should easily be able to acknowledge that the Pope would have different morals, values and beliefs if he had been born in the 16th century, or the 12th century, or the 4th century, or way back in the 2nd century before the birth of Christ. All that the Pope is; the traits, beliefs, morals, values, and knowledge; is merely a product of the place and the time he was born into. Understand this in relation to the Pope and also in relation to yourself. The baby that has now become the Pope (John Paul II), while a baby, had the potential to believe in any religion and feel that he belongs to any culture. This applies to every human being. It is very difficult, being subjective creatures - bioents, to accept the fact that we are subjective. The problem with accepting that fact, that truth, is that it automatically follows on that these human traits which we values so highly: our culture, morals, beliefs, knowledge and values, are totally subjective. But being subjective they are thus variable, transitory and are dependent on mere chance. Thus, the ‘bottom line’ - the real truth of the matter - is that these traits, not only those which ‘others’ have, and with which you may perhaps disagree, but your very own traits etc, are totally meaningless and valueless as regards objective truth. Emotionally, it is very difficult for us to admit these things. For these traits are the very ‘standards’ by which we judge ourselves. These traits are the very things which we are! These traits have become us and we have become them. We consider ourselves civilised, decent and intelligent based on the traits which we have. The truth is that we would always judge ourselves as being civilised etc no matter what traits we had because, of their nature they, and we, are variable and subjective. We use the traits we have to evaluate ourselves ie our values are judging our values! So of course we always come to the conclusion that we are intelligent, decent, moral and wonderful creatures. Take me for example. My name is Lou. I was born in Dublin, on the east coast of Ireland, which lies just off the western edge of the European mainland. I was born in 1956. I was born into a Catholic family. Thus I have the traits (values etc) which I have. That is not to say that nothing has changed as regards my beliefs and values etc - eg I am not a Catholic anymore. But the fact is that if I had been born in Spain, or Borneo, or Chile, or a Palestinian refugee camp, or Japan, or the United States, or anywhere else other then exactly where I was born and brought up, I would have a different set of values, maybe in some cases only slightly different, but in other cases very very different indeed to the values which I now have. Likewise if I had been born in 1900, or in 1500, or in the year 300, or even back as far as 50BC, or 1,000BC, then my traits would not be the same; they could not be the same as those I now have. All this could, or should, be obvious to everybody. And although we may know it, or accept it, as a logical ‘fact’, we don't, and cannot, accept this as part of the truth of our daily lives. This actual truth is not relevant as regards our instinctive ‘evaluation mechanism’. When we ‘think’ it is with these subjective traits we evaluate the world around us. All these subjective traits become the person. The human cannot be separated from bes beliefs, knowledge etc. People do not want to know if their particular religion, and their particular god, is not the true one. As I have shown, the baby becomes the adult by, in most cases, blindly accepting the acquired tribal traits and beliefs. To question the beliefs is to question the very individual beself. Acquired beliefs NEVER have to be proven. It is only the alternative beliefs, or alternative explanations, which need to be proved. The beliefs are the person; they are totally and absolutely subjective - the human being is a totally and absolutely subjective entity. After all, we are only bioents - that is only what we can be. This is the only way we can ‘think’ and the only ‘reality’ in which we can function. For example, I could never think thus (before understanding the UT Instinct!); my name happens to be Lou, I happen to be Irish, I happen to speak with a Dublin accent, I happen to consider bigamy to be unacceptable, I happen to think that the Catholic Church is the only correct religion, I happen to believe that killing another human is wrong etc etc. I thought those things were TRUTH - reality. I thought that these thing defined me, not on a trivial basis eg nationality, but actually defined me as a person, as to whether I was civilised and intelligent, or not. This is actually so obvious as to be capable of being automatically understood by everyone - without any need for discussion or arguments, or books! Yet we do not think thus. For the most part we are unable to bypass our subjective view of life. But another fact which should be obvious is that we are mere bioents and thus actually cannot be objective. For where would we acquire this objective truth? If not from our subjective lives and subjective experience, then where? The only alternative would be intuition. But it seems fairly obvious that intuition would very much depend on the upbringing of the person and where they grew up etc - in other words, this intuition would have a very subjective base. Likewise, it follows that being subjective bioent necessarily also means that we are an irrational life-form. The simple question being - how can we be rational? - as we are totally subjective? One universal truth is that no bioent (human being, or even alien for that matter) can be rational; no bioent can be capable of being rational. This summery is one of the main keys to understanding the UT Instinct, its explanations and its results. So from here on it will be taken for granted that humans are subjective, irrational bioents. Or to put it more forcefully; the human is a stupid, dumb, self-centred bioent, without ‘real’ morals, knowledge, or values. We are that entity which crawled out of the mud of evolution - though there is no shame in that whatsoever! The following is a simple example of how to understand that human traits etc are subjective. If you do not have knowledge of, or have not used computers you may not fully understand this example. It is not vital, as such, but nevertheless is very near ‘reality’. A baby could be compared to a computer which has an operating system installed but does not have any programs installed. It has the potential to do or be any type of computer. Let us presume that a wordprocessor program is installed and suddenly that computer is a wordprocessor. If it were able to talk it would say that it was proud to be a wordprocessor computer. It would have the values and beliefs of a wordprocessor etc. If, instead, a database program was installed in the computer it would be proud to be a database computer and would have the values and beliefs of a database computer. If, instead, a spreadsheet program was installed in the computer it would be proud to be a spreadsheet computer etc. If one were to ask the question as to the objective value of any of this computer's evaluations it should be fairly obvious to realise that they would be useless, they would have no value whatsoever, for the computer's values were totally subjective and variable. In truth, the computer's pride, values, culture and beliefs are valueless and meaningless. It is thus with humans. To end this summary I would like to explain that the UT Instinct could be defined as being the controlling force behind a human's evaluation mechanism. The human evaluation mechanism is based on bes subjective traits. Therefore, it is instinctive, subjective and variable. It is also totally irrational. A humans uses bes subjective traits to judge another bioent which has its own subjective traits. The only ‘problem’ is that neither can see that their traits, and those of the other, are both as subjective, as valueless and as meaningless as each other's. To judge, in most circumstances, is an irrationality activity. The result of the UT Instinct is totally irrational evaluations but they are also totally natural. See also Appendix 2 - The Two Babies Scenario (Right click link to open in a New Window - then just close the New Window when you are finished). Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|