Steve's seeming bias?

[culturepainter]

Hello Everyone,

I recently read this article that Steve wrote:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...shall-we-live/

In that article a couple of lines particularly struck me:

When I look at how life has evolved on earth, I see this force of evolution as something much greater than my own personal existence. I see that life has been continuing to upgrade its complexity, its intelligence, and its overall chances of survival. When I place myself within this context, I see that I have three basic options. I can work to cooperate with evolution, I can work against it, or I can ignore it. My human awareness gives me the ability to make this choice consciously.

I found Steve's take on how he is linking 'advancement' very interesting. Let me give you a little back ground.
See, I grew up in a Eastern religious setting where they believe that the Universe was created many centuries ago. And when God created the 'original batch' of people they were all pure. And through the centuries people got more and more degraded untill we have the present. And this religion predicts that things will get worse and worse untill God gets sick of all the nonsense and razes everything down and builds it up new and nice all over again.

Now I don't personally cater to this point of view but what I found interesting about people who subscribe to this religion is that when they view world events, they keep talking about "the good ol' days" and keep talking about the demise of human nature at present. These people talk about how human nature is going to get worse in the future. In other words, its like their greater beliefs bias them into seeing that which supports their belief of human nature going down hill.

Evolution on the other hand seems to indicate that the universe is naturally moving from a state of primitiveness to one of complexity and sophistication. I was wondering if perhaps Steve's belief in evolution forms a filter in his eyes where he sees that the universe is naturally improving and that we should participate in its naturally improving nature. Is he preinclined towards looking for evidence of things improving over time?

Now I'm not trying to get into a Creation Vs Evolution debate. That's not my intention. But rather, it seems that our belief may color the evidence that we pick and the conclusions that we come up with.

As such do we all need to come to the conclusion that the universe is indeed improving? Is it really? Some aspects of the universe certainly seem to be going down hill.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by culturepainter
As such do we all need to come to the conclusion that the universe is indeed improving? Is it really? Some aspects of the universe certainly seem to be going down hill.

It could be that some aspects of the universe is going down hill... if so... those aspect will eventually keep on degrading and disappear as they should... and the aspects that are going uphill (evolving) will no longer have to put up with it... not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned...

.

[silicon toad2000]

I don't think we need to come to any conlusion about what the universe is doing. I think we need to come to a conclusion/decision about what role we are going to play withing the universe long before we conclude what the universe is doing.
I find the universe a bit too big for me to cope with mentally. I think whatever the universe/mankind is doing, improving or not, is the net effect of everyone's input.
I feel it is a better allocation of our time to think about the effect we are having on the universe and decide if we are going to do our best the leave the universe a little better for our participation.
All I can conclude is that through my efforts, no matter how infinitely small the effect, the universe is doing a little better than it would have otherwise. Thats really all that matters to me.

[Shamou]

silicon toad2000... one of the most powerful lesson that I ever learned is that I should always try to leave my universe a little better when I go to bed than it was when I woke that same morning...

I has worked pretty well for me...

.

[Steve Pavlina]

This is indeed a bias, although one I've consciously chosen. The reason is that I perceive that all observation is creative. There can be no unbiased observation from the human perspective.

Truth is an objective standard, but objective truth is perspective-independent. 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective truth because it's independent of the observer.

Creation is a subjective standard. Human evolution is not a pure objective truth because the observer's bias can influence the outcome, so it falls within the subjective realm. The subjective is the realm of conscious choice.

As an active participant in life, if I believe in evolution, I may participant in its manifestation. Since I prefer to experience growth more than decline, growth is what I choose to create. I don't deny the objective truths I encounter, but where subjective judgments are involved, I intentionally bias them in the direction of growth.

[Calculusaurus]

Just a few quick points to add...

Originally Posted by culturepainter

These people talk about how human nature is going to get worse in the future. In other words, its like their greater beliefs bias them into seeing that which supports their belief of human nature going down hill.

I believe this perspective is a matter of choice, but a more critical analysis yields the opposite: human nature is improving and has been throughout history. Watch this short talk given by Richard Dawkins - YouTube - Beyond Belief '06 - Richard Dawkins . He gives a few examples of how human morality tends toward improvement.

I was wondering if perhaps Steve's belief in evolution forms a filter in his eyes where he sees that the universe is naturally improving and that we should participate in its naturally improving nature.

I believe you need to distinguish between the two types of improvement you're talking about -- moral improvement and evolutionary improvement.

One the one hand, we have moral improvement, or the improvement of humanity in our moral interactions with one another. I addressed this above with the Dawkins video, which says that morality is improving.

On the other hand you have evolutionary "improvement." This is entirely different. It's biological "improvement," increasing complexity in our biological form and function. First, it's currently not well agreed upon among scientists that evolution actually tends towards "improvement." Stephen Jay Gould argued that evolution has no "direction" and that humans are just as much of a random result as any other organism. Gould didn't support such evolutionary human chauvinism. Some evolutionists disagree, and say that there are intrinsic mechanisms in evolution that naturally bring about species as complex as humans.

There's this book called Evolution's Arrow that supports evolutionary "direction." The book applies very well to your topic, culturepainter. It encourages readers to take a conscious role in evolution -- here are a few quotes from the about page of Evolution's Arrow:

Evolution’s Arrow is helping to promote a significant evolutionary shift in which increasing numbers of individuals are seeing themselves as having a conscious role in the future evolution of life on earth.

Evolution’s Arrow uses the methods, tools and findings of science to demonstrate that the evolution of life is directional. Evolution is not an aimless and random process, it is headed somewhere. This has significant implications for humanity.

In an important further development, some individuals will begin to undergo a critical shift in consciousness. Instead of experiencing themselves as isolated and self-concerned individuals, they will begin to see and experience themselves as participants and actors in the great evolutionary process on their planet. They will realise that:

• a life dedicated to the pursuit of narrow desires and pleasures cannot be worthwhile. They will see that their desires are evolution’s way of programming them to be adaptive and successful in past environments. In many cases their desires and pleasures no longer serve this purpose effectively – they often produce maladaptive behaviour;
  
  ...
  
  
• their actions can have meaning and purpose insofar as they are relevant to the wider evolutionary process. To the extent that their actions can contribute positively to the evolutionary process, they are meaningful to a larger process outside themselves that has been unfolding long before they were born and that will continue long after they die;
  
• to maximise their evolvability, they will need to develop themselves psychologically [personal development! yay] to become self-evolving beings - organisms that can adapt in whatever directions are necessary to advance the evolutionary process, unrestricted by their biological and social past.

The book -- yes, the entire book -- is available free online: Evolution's Arrow

[seeker5]

It sure makes for a lot happier existence when you see the world getting better and improving, then if you choose to see the world decaying and getting worst.

[JohnPlace]

Biological evolution, through the process of natural selection, rewards accidental genetic characteristics that make a species more capable of surviving and reproducing -- therefore, biological evolution trends toward advancement, where advancement is defined as the ability to survive at any given point in time.

But in order for human beings to evolve, natural selection has to be allowed to run its course. And in the modern world, technology enables all varieties of human beings to live long and reproduce, while social standards discourage rapid propagation. So if any evolution is still taking place in human beings, it is of a heavily influenced (and quite unique) variety.

But biological evolution is not the only kind of evolution. As a general term, it generally connotes progress.

My personal belief is that the overall trend in the world is positive.

[bigadam]

How many generations throughout time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket and wished for the good old days again?

Just recently these people probably thought so:
The people of the Great Depression
The Vietnam War era
The Cold War era
Etc...

Every generation has experienced or will experience an event that challenges it's role in this world.

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by bigadam

How many generations throughout time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket and wished for the good old days again?

Just recently these people probably thought so:
The people of the Great Depression
The Vietnam War era
The Cold War era
Etc...

Every generation has experienced or will experience an event that challenges it's role in this world.

I guess that's what makes life worth living is the challenge, the new obstacle to overcome.

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Biological evolution, through the process of natural selection, rewards accidental genetic characteristics that make a species more capable of surviving and reproducing -- therefore, biological evolution trends toward advancement, where advancement is defined as the ability to survive at any given point in time.

But in order for human beings to evolve, natural selection has to be allowed to run its course. And in the modern world, technology enables all varieties of human beings to live long and reproduce, while social standards discourage rapid propagation. So if any evolution is still taking place in human beings, it is of a heavily influenced (and quite unique) variety.

But biological evolution is not the only kind of evolution. As a general term, it generally connotes progress.

My personal belief is that the overall trend in the world is positive.

I think there are different medium through which competition and progress can take place. It went to biological evolution with DNA, to society evolution with knowlege passed down by word of mouth, and now the internet with a competition of ideas. For example, in these forums, everyone has their own opinion and makes a post about their ideas. Then other people, like bloggers, come along, read, choose the best ideas that have the most truth, so that the best ideas spread.

If an idea is well presented and easy to believe then it is likely to be spread.

I see it as a competition of information. DNA is just information. The United States constitution was a set of instructions to follow that has made it quite successful, and has pushed other nations to adopt similar governments.

The very reason that the United States is successful is that it protects competition, so that the best information in different systems (like corporations, religions, ideas) can quickly be spread by not having a dictator suppress ideas. The checks and balances, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no monopolies... all there to encourage and protect the best information.

[John Wesley]

I agree with Steve, that observation is a creative action. You can choose to see the world as constantly improving or going down hill. Whatever you want to see there is plenty of evidence for both.

Personally, I like to think things are getting better. It's more fulfilling to strive for something positive than to lament our miserable condition. I also believe in the consistency of eternity; that no matter how much things may appear to change, everything ultimately balances out to perfect harmony.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by culturepainter

As such do we all need to come to the conclusion that the universe is indeed improving? Is it really? Some aspects of the universe certainly seem to be going down hill.

I guess it depends on what you mean by downhill. Degradation and decomposition do take place. So do growth and expansion.

There are natural cycles in life such as ebb and flow, birth and death, growth and withering etc.

None of the above are directly related to evolution/creation as such.

[Iksander]

As said above, decay is a natural process - how you choose to handle the decay of something (whether it be an idea, a social trend, a country, or a person) is important to the peace you experience in life. Your very own body is decaying - as something that moves through time; yet, you evolve in the non-locality of your consciousness.

When I die, I want to have a party thrown, not a funeral; and I would rather have the cause of that death be an event or experience of fun and exhilaration.

I have had a number of people in my family die and I never once felt pain or sadness (doesn't make you a popular dude at the funerals though) for their passing; I felt nothing - just a sort of 'normal' feeling I suppose.