Babies On An Island

[Lightkeeper]

Let's say human babies were stranded on an island and they were fed and cared for by a very primitive adult. The island is primitive. There are no modern conveniences. The babies have all modern discoveries in their genetic make up. Do you think these humans would make discoveries faster than first humans did who didn't have the same history stored in their genetic make up? In other words would the wheel, tools, machines, electricity be discovered faster?

[Travis Clementsmith]

Interesting query. There's two ways of looking at this, short and long term. In the short term, the answer is almost undeniably, no. Its really a variation of the "wolf boy" or "Tarzan" scenario. Would a human baby raised by some wild animal naturally grow into its higher consciousness forms? In the cases that have come closest to such a scenario, it does not unfold. Unfolding consciousness is just as dependant on the social structure that cares for it whether it be animal or primitive human.

So, let's go a little longer term. Would the generations of these people progress faster than what the world did? Here we introduce another variable: the environment. Are we talking Fiji or Australia for the island size? There is huge geneology project based on mitrochondrial DNA samples that tracks the so-called "seven daughters of Eve" as they spread out of Africa. What I noticed about the study that really wasn't the focus of the study itself, is that human consciousness deepens as people moved around more. The civilizations that stayed put more (such as the aborrigines and native Africans) had civilizations that retained their tribal nature (PURPLE in Spiral Dynamics terms) longer. Familiarity didn't spark innovation. But tribal members who set out for the unknown eventually produced civilizations beyond tribal associations. In short, if the island doesn't produce the opportunity for much exploration and variety, it is more likely to remain primitive.

There are, however, a couple of spiritual theories where this could provide n interesting analogy. Physics tells us there is a possibility of universes other than this one, one such theory being an oscilating universe that follows a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. In Hinduism, the universe is believed to be a series of inhalations and exhalations of Brahma. But it is not just the physical that is made and remade, information is also embedded into this fabric, sometimes known as the Akashic Records. So it is possible that our civilization has progressed faster in this universal cycle than the previous one, because we have access intellectual features already "thought up" that we just had to divine. This would explain why some people see innovation "in a dream" and just seem to "know" it is the right answer. Of course there is no way of knowing if we are still within the bounds of the last cycle of intellectual knowledge or if we are now probing new depths.

Finally, most religious systems that subscribe to some form of reincarnation say the Soul collects all wisdom from its incarnation and then uses that wisdom to select its next incarnation. It is therefore of utmost importance to collect as much knowledge as possible so that you continue to make choices that allow you to further your wisdom. In Plato's Republic, he describes this scnario in "The Myth of Ur". Sorry for rambling.
-TC

[Lightkeeper]

That was interesting "rambling". The possibility of dreaming of things is very interesting.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

The babies have all modern discoveries in their genetic make up.

You've made a mistake in regards to genetics.

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Do you think these humans would make discoveries faster than first humans did who didn't have the same history stored in their genetic make up? In other words would the wheel, tools, machines, electricity be discovered faster?

No. We don't store history in our genes.

We don't store anything in our genes. Our genes protect themselves from the savagery of the environment by building us.

[Lightkeeper]

We do store tendencies in our genes. That's a good question. What do you think Travis, does our knowledge effect our genetic makeup?

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

We do store tendencies in our genes. That's a good question. What do you think Travis, does our knowledge effect our genetic makeup?

Biologically, no, not to a great extent anyway. Downward causation is rare. Its like asking does increased biological complexity affect the physical components. Not beyond the extent that it uses them. But the reverse is certainly true, changes in physical makeup can drastically alter the way biological complexity evolves. Biological complexity can drastically alter the scope of intellectual complexity.

That said, the deeper structures can "act upon" the lower structures. So, intellectual activity can produce genetic engineering which is the intellect acting upon the biological. This may produce a mutation that will in turn have to see if it can adapt and survive within the larger biospheric backdrop. If it does, then you do have an intellectual interferrence with our genetic makeup, but this is not the same as saying the very context of the nature of our intellect changes our genetic makeup.

But, there is one other possibility. Systems do co-evolve where it is impossible to say one is the cause of the other. For example, did larger brain mass simply evolve in early humans which allowed for greater expansions into intellect, or did early humans innovate first which in turn stimulated new brain matter growth? The brain is structured in a triune system starting with a reptilian-like brainstem, a paleo-mammilian like creebrum, and finally the complex corpus callosum. So, you can actually see the advancement in brain size and power almost as a geologist can determine epochs in the rocks. So, I do think co-evolution is possible and I leave it to pure materialists and pure gnostics to battle whether one is the cause of the other. I think the give rise to one another.

-TC

[Lightkeeper]

What do you think about the possibility of cell memory? I have noticed in my daughter certain traits that her paternal side has and she had never been around these people. If generations of people have certain habits that are repeated, it appears these habits can be passed on. Or is it that a particular cellular makeup causes a particular habit?

What about a person that becomes a very good artist and the only other good artist was two generations back?

[Travis Clementsmith]

It depends, sometimes its difficult to say whether the trait has a biological cause which is what is passed on and we just see the surface expression we interpret as a personality trait. Its not impossible, I said it was rare. I haven't really studied the subject that much.

Sometimes artists come from family lines that have never had an artist of note. Its difficult to judge how talent comes about. If one believes in transmigrating souls, genetics may actually have very little to do with it. Certainly, talent associated with physical activity can have a genetic trace.

-TC

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

Its like asking does increased biological complexity affect the physical components. Not beyond the extent that it uses them.

Can you re-phrase that for me? I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Travis Clementsmith]

An increase of biological complexity, such as vegetation to fish, does no alter the principles of physics involved in both with reference to atoms and elements and quanta and such. Now, a plant may use sunlight in the photosynthesis process and alter the chemical properties integral to this interaction, but it is not really altering the principles of physics in this. The principles of biology have their base in the principles of physics, just as the principles of intellect have their base in the principles of biology. They are nested within one another and while physics may be the most fundamental, intellect has the most depth. The whole, however, coevolves.

-TC