Just because it has been an evolutionary advantage for our mind to be constantly active, doesn't mean that this can't change.
That's the point of evolution: we adapt to what's necessary and, for millions of years, constant thought was the factor that made us smarter than everyone else, and the humans in whom this didn't occur weren't smart enough, thus their genes disappeared from the gene pool.
This, however, doesn't mean we can't keep evolving towards a state of consciousness where constant thought isn't required, it just means that -- as is always the case -- existence is challenging, because there's millions of years of inertia behind the mind. It has a strong pull, because it was needed for survival. But we can keep evolving.
It doesn't need to continue like this forever. It just means that, as opposed to earlier, the people in whom thought is too strong and uncontrollable are now the ones whose genes are removed from the gene pool, through mental illness and anxiety.
If you're willing to spend some time watching your mind, you'll realize that it already stops all the time, it's just a matter of noticing this, thus strengthening its absence. But don't expect there to be a button to push to make it stop. It was needed for survival, so its cessation has become associated with fear. But, while you are conscious of this fact, it's not a problem, just a challenge.
I do not think that we should focus on the present, nor do I think that we should focus on the past/future. However, I think even the original article was more convincing than this argument.
Yes, it certainly is conceivable that people will evolve to "live in the moment". But arguing that those who don't do so have mental illness and/or anxiety is a bit much. That's like saying people who "live in the moment" will be taken care of by natural selection because they won't learn from their mistakes and they won't see things coming until it's too late.
First of all, it's a strawman - just because you're focusing on the present in general doesn't mean you're unable to look at the past or future, and just because you're focusing on the past/future in general doesn't mean you're unable to enjoy the present as well. In other words, even if you're "living in the moment" overall, you can still recall mistakes and avoid repeating them, and you can still have foresight. And even if you reflect on the past or consider possibilities of the future, you can still be neurotypical.
Second, even if these things were all mutually exclusive, what evidence suggests that one of the group's genes will be removed from the gene pool? I know plenty of people who forget everything and also struggle thinking 1 step ahead in tic tac toe, and I don't see them struggling to keep their genes in circulation - they just have a different pool they choose from (other "near-sighted" people). Similarly, I have quite a few friends with anxiety, and they do just fine, because they date other friends of mine with anxiety.
> If you're willing to spend some time watching your mind, you'll realize that it already stops all the time, it's just a matter of noticing this, thus strengthening its absence
And if you're willing to spend some time watching your mind, you'll realize that it already starts back up all the time. It's just a matter of noticing that your mind is inclined towards thinking, and strengthening the presence of thoughts in your mind.
The previous paragraph was not meant as a serious argument. Again, I am not arguing that "living in the moment" is bad or that we should avoid it or anything like that. The point of it was just to demonstrate that the argument needs more to back it up.
>to "live in the moment". But arguing that those who don't do so have mental illness and/or anxiety is a bit much.
In school I had a headmaster who was all about the importance of living in the moment (and related, nice-sounding advice). Naive as I was I spent too much time trying to figure out what is wrong with me until I eventually decided such people need not criticize the minds of young adults with selling this kind of bullshit.
To each their own and measure one another by the value they create, and how they treat others, not by some worldview such as this which basically blurs the line between philosophy/religion and science.
First of all, it's a strawman - just because you're focusing on the present in general doesn't mean you're unable to look at the past or future, and just because you're focusing on the past/future in general doesn't mean you're unable to enjoy the present as well.
This is true of people who learn to live in the moment despite it not being automatic for them, and its when they do it in a social context that demands paying attention to the past and future. If a group of humans innately lived in the moment, they would be unlikely to learn to care about the past and future. An individual who was born with that innate tendency in a social setting that does care about the past and future might learn to care by absorbing the values through socialization. But the values have to come from somewhere, and they're less likely to be ignored of people care about them by their nature.
There's so much wrong with the post you're responding to. A lot of which you already highlighted.
I do want to mention two things first, though.
On the topic of evolution, evolution does not occur within an individual, IE: pokemon, which, I feel like, the OP was trying to suggest. Also, on the topic of evolution, who's to say that a quiet mind is ideal? There have been rational arguments that mental illness exists due to evolution.
On the topic of a totally silent mind. That doesn't exist. Brain scans show that even when people meditate and believe that their mind is completely inactive, that there is activity going on. It's commonly known in those circles that it's impossible to be completely blank, and it's even frowned upon to even attempt it; as, ironically, it has the opposite effect of creating more activity.
How are you so certain?
It's easy to embrace non-thought, which essentially equates with belief in Cessation, or roughly, nihilism.
You sound like you've found a happy medium between your conceptual understanding of the sensory input, and your conceptual understanding of consciousness. Your Vinn diagram looks like foamy bubbles, with shared surfaces but no overlap.
Maybe it's interesting to examine the possibility of permanent non-existence, but the really fundamental change in perspective occurs when we understand that maybe nothing matters, and then recognize that we are still subject to reality, and do our best to help.
If you really believe in the value of watching your mind, then you should do it full time.
Short term evolution over one's lifetime (getting better at swimming, getting better at coding, etc.) is a very different matter than a species evolution (changes so significant the next generations are a different specie).
The capacity to adapt to a new environment means different things in the context of day-to-day struggle or millions of years in a stable environment.
Homo sapiens sapiens is +/- 200 000 years old and has demonstrated an incredible adaptability but good luck evolving gills if oceans would rise 20 km in the next 25 years.
> It doesn't need to continue like this forever. It just means that, as opposed to earlier, the people in whom thought is too strong and uncontrollable are now the ones whose genes are removed from the gene pool, through mental illness and anxiety.
>Short term evolution over one's lifetime (getting better at swimming, getting better at coding, etc.) is a very different matter than a species evolution
In the context you're referring to, 'short term evolution', isn't evolution at all. That's a misuse of the word evolution.
Evolution = Natural Selection. It's based on mutation of genes leading to a significant survival advantage over the existing species which in turn sees it's population go extinct like the neanderthals. First of all, meditation is a skill, not a genetic mutation. Second of all, there would need to be a massive disease or catalyst for it to even be possible for humans to evolve in a specific direction.
Well there is always the coming threat of gene-editing that almost surely will start being used by the world's wealthiest to secure a permanent advantage over the rest of humanity.
Evolution as a word has a specific definition and usage that you are misusing. You're being downvoted because in your comment, you seem to be implying that humans can through the "leveraging of emotions, beliefs, and actions" achieve evolution which is patently false, unless of course you're talking about some kind of 'cultural' evolution. But then you should specify that in your comment, because that isn't the context in which evolution is normally used.
My understanding of evolution is we can change the overall makeup of our species through our actions and choices, such as C-sections leading to women having narrower pelvises over time.
This suggests collectively changing how we use our brains would lead to a society in which people who don't use their brains the same way could be less likely to thrive. Thus, they'd be selected against evolutionarily.
What part of this conflicts with your understanding of evolution?
For evolution to happen naturally on genetic level, is a process that takes millions of years. It would take a concerted effort across thousands of generations of humans to see any meaningful change. The likelihood of this happening is nil to none. More realistic avenues of achieving something like what you talk about are likely through genetic engineering, nanotechnology integration, etc.
Epigenetics has shown how susceptible we are chemically and that those genetic changes are hereditary. We also know brain chemistry can be impacted by changes in how we use the brain. I suspect we'll be able to use these mechanisms to intentionally evolve faster.
How is it you're so very certain about how we work and the time scale evolution operates on when we're still discovering core mechanisms?
You may want to consider challenging some of these beliefs you hold because it sounds like they're limiting what you consider possible, which can only serve to limit your own behavior. A growth-oriented mindset is more helpful for learning and if we want to learn collectively, I think we'll need a lot more people with that kind of mindset.
If you don't believe it's possible to collectively organize to strategically change our thinking, will you be less inclined to orient your own toward the goal because "why bother?"
I believe there are simple, desirable ways to change how we use our brains and they're effective enough to get immediate benefits from them. That's enough for me to believe they're globally marketable, which is what it'll take to collectively organize.
Choosing the right actions is dependent on how you want to evolve. The right emotion is going to be joy. The only belief needed is that you can evolve in the way you want to. Also need to abandon beliefs to the contrary.
That's the point of evolution: we adapt to what's necessary and, for millions of years, constant thought was the factor that made us smarter than everyone else, and the humans in whom this didn't occur weren't smart enough, thus their genes disappeared from the gene pool.
This, however, doesn't mean we can't keep evolving towards a state of consciousness where constant thought isn't required, it just means that -- as is always the case -- existence is challenging, because there's millions of years of inertia behind the mind. It has a strong pull, because it was needed for survival. But we can keep evolving.
It doesn't need to continue like this forever. It just means that, as opposed to earlier, the people in whom thought is too strong and uncontrollable are now the ones whose genes are removed from the gene pool, through mental illness and anxiety.
If you're willing to spend some time watching your mind, you'll realize that it already stops all the time, it's just a matter of noticing this, thus strengthening its absence. But don't expect there to be a button to push to make it stop. It was needed for survival, so its cessation has become associated with fear. But, while you are conscious of this fact, it's not a problem, just a challenge.