Difference between revisions of "Why a Point Omega transition ?"

Revision as of 13:12, 18 January 2017

This article explains how the conclusion was reached that it is likely that shortly humanity will go through a transition that will change the life of us humans more than anything before in human history, yes even more than anything in human evolution. If our deductions are correct, the coming transition will even be a novelty from the perspective of evolution itself. It will in fact be the emergence of "conscious evolution" which we can safely consider as the culmination of life on earth. What is more, if our deductions are right it should be considered as a basic law of nature that on any planet in the universe where life is possible, sooner or later "conscious evolution" will emerge. For our planet that moment in time is now, or rather, very soon. And we humans are the carriers of that pinnacle of evolution.

This conclusion, that we can expect such a sudden rise in human potentials and in the quality of human functioning, is based on combining the following collection of 9 findings.

1a) Self-actualization the exception instead of the rule in Homo sapiens

- Self-actualization, the coming to bloom of a rather complete collection of innate potentials in a human being is the exception, rather than the rule. That is very different from how it works in other species. How is that strange and unexpected situation possible and how could that be an ESS ?

1b) Maslow and the foundation of Humanistic Psychology

- Maslow, the author who launched that concept, could not be discarded as being mistaken. He appeared to have done his homework quite thoroughly, starting with his research on monkeys and subsequently investigating if and how his findings also pertained to humans. Although going quite strongly against anything that an evolutionary biologist would expect, Homo sapiens emerged from his research as an anomaly, a evolutionary contradiction, in the sense that we apparently are a species in which the majority of the members are functioning way below their inborn potentials and not the other way around, as is customary in any other species. So, not being able to discard Maslow's work as mistaken, I was left with contradictory and seemingly impossible information about the behaviour of ourselves, of Homo sapiens.

1c) The foundation of Humanistic Psychology as an Evolutionary Paradox ?

- However, at first sight it does make absolutely no sense that in Homo sapiens, considering itself as the evolutionary pinnacle of intelligence, it seems to work the other way around as what is the case in the rest of the animal kingdom. Just a minority of the human population seems to be actualizing the full innate behavioural repertoire, while the majority gets stuck in truncated behaviour patterns, neuroses and other fear clusters. How strange ! If the available data are correct and interpreted in the right way, there must be something quite extraordinary going on in our own species !

2a) The CEL (Cognition-Energy-Learning model)

- The development of the CEL (Cognition-Energy-Learning) model, my novel theory of learning, based on Apter and Smith's Reversal Theory, but then expanded with some evolutionary considerations, shows that the system of emotional and motivational reversals can be regarded as the behavioural engine that is needed to enable individuals to make optimum use of an open-ended capacity of learning. That implies that any species with the capacity to acquire a behavioural repertoire that is specifically geared to deal with different personal coincidental circumstances of living, does have such a reversal system in its behavioural organisation. Without such a reversal system, a capacity for situational adaptation is not possible. It does not need much explanation that such a CEL is a major step forward in the evolution of flexible behaviour patterns that can adapt to changing circumstances.

2b) The CEL and contagiousness

What is of importance here, is that this CEL model describes that learning and behavioural growth is not only flexible, but also highly contagious. In other words, badly processed experiences lead to emergency, rough and ready, behavioural avoidance responses, fear complexes and neuroticism, and such fear complexes diminish the likelihood of a proper processing of further experiences in the future. Reversely, well-processed experiences increase the likelihood of well processing further experiences and thus a further increase of skills and mastery. There is a basic "unfairness" to the whole learning mechanism, in that the already favoured individuals learn best and the misfits have the worst chances to further profit from their further experiences. The learning system tends to amplify already existing differences in development. But from an evolutionary point of view, the system works very efficient en economical. Basically the CEL harbours two types of so called positive reinforcement loops, one in the direction of gaining skills and mastery, and the other in the direction of culminating avoidance reflexes and neuroses. (see the figure below)

2c) Contagiousness between people

Within a person, well processing of experiences is contagious and badly processing of experiences also is contagious, but in the other direction. Besides, on top of that, a similar contagiousness also exists between individuals of the same group, living together. The more skilled the other members of the group, the better the chances of an individual to also end up in learning spirals in the desired direction, towards more mastery and skills. And the more neurotics and fear ridden cowards around, the worse are the chances for an individual to learn optimally from his or her experiences.

• • • • • • • • hier de figuur met de 2 loops

2d) Evolutionary efficiency of the CEL

The CEL predicts that there are basically two optional outcomes of a sequence of experiences. The one option is the favorable one, leading to increasing skills and mastery and the other option is leading to increasing avoidance clusters and a truncated behavioural repertoire. In other species, the unfavorable option mainly occurs in a minority of the specimens, in the minority of individuals who don't make it and in that way are "weeded out" more efficiently and more quickly than what would be the case without such a behavioural provision. The open ended learning capacity is that way boosting processes of natural selection, favoring the specimens with the highest learning capacity. This organization of behaviour and of the learning system thus obviously makes evolutionary sense.

3a) Positive reinforcement loops in two directions

- The positive reinforcement character of both the favourable and the unfavourable option of the process of learning and development does have similar results as similar systems with a double mechanism of positive reinforcement. As an example we may consider what happens in a chemical solution with a strong acid and a strong basic component. In such a watery solution the water molecules react in an acidic or in a basic way, depending on which types of molecules constitute the majority. The way the water molecules behave is more or less in line with how the majority of the molecules in that watery solution behave. And that statistic bias in the behaviour of the water molecules reinforces the percentual bias in the chemical behaviour of the solution. The behaviour of the water molecules is subject to two antagonist positive reinforcement effects stemming from the acidic part and from the basic part of the components in the solution. The net result of these opposite but complementary reinforcement loops is that the acidity (pH) of the solution very rapidly changes if close to the chemical equilibrium between acid and base and that it only changes gradually if the solution is far away from the equilibrium point. The result is the well known S-curve of acidity as depending on the amount of acid added.

hier figuur van S-curve van zuur-base titer

2f) The inflection-point relationship between self-actualization of individuals and self-actualization at large

The dependence of individual chances for an optimal development depend on the percentage of people around who have emotional space and energy to hand out "strokes", also to the individual(s) in question. In other words, the more Self-actualizers in a population, the better the chances for any individual in that population to also attain self-actualization / actualization of the innate potentials. And reversely, the more neurotic and fear ridden individuals there are in a population, the more likely it is that any individual in that population also will end up as fear ridden and neurotic. From the perspective of process dynamics we also here are dealing with two antagonistic positive reinforcement loops, each with an opposite final result. For that reason we may expect a similar relationship between the likelihood of optimal development and learning and the average composition of the population in terms of self-actualizers versus fear ridden neurotics.

hier figuur van S-curve van kans op actualization as dependent on % of self-actualizers in the population

What remains is the question at what % of self-actualizers the inflection point may be expected, where an extra addition of self-actualizers in the population will have an exceptional strong effect on the condition of the whole population.

3) The usual Upper Limit of Intelligence in Evolution

- There is something peculiar going on in evolution as far as intelligence is concerned. In different phyla, in quite different eras of earthly evolution, species developed intelligence, which we define here as freely applicable information processing capacity. What strikes the observer, is that in all those different phyla, and in all those different evolutionary eras, the level of intelligence acquired ends at more or less the same level. That suggests that there exists a functional upper limit to freely applicable information processing capacity. Apparently, a too high level of intelligence in principle is not an ESS. Considering how behaviour evolves and is selected for in evolution, it is easily noticed that there is a certain, all-important relationship between the proximate causes of behaviour, the innate reflexes of liking and disliking, of approach and avoidance on the one hand and on the other hand the ultimate causes of behavioural reflexes, which are the ultimate procreational results. What is important to note, is that selection forces exert their influence on the ultimate effects of the behaviours, whereas only the proximate feelings and urges are present in the awareness of the actors. Proximate reflexes and urges are selected for through their ultimate effects on the reproductive level. But the latter in general is not a point of consideration of the actors, acting on the basis of the proximate urges. It can be argued that an intelligence that reaches the level where it can be applied to (re-)considering its own proximate urges and finds short-cuts to attain desired results in non-traditional ways, is likely to produce fulfillment of short term proximate urges, but without the customary non-conscious ultimate effects at the level of reproduction. Intelligence will help to find ways to fulfill the proximate desires eventually without paying the price for them in terms of ultimate consequences of the original, traditional behavioural automatisms that are now being replaced by more clever and less costly solutions. Our hypothesis is therefore that in principle a too high intelligence will automatically weed itself out as soon as it enables the carrier of that intelligence to manipulate its own behaviour in order to fulfill proximate desires in novel and clever ways, different from the evolutionarily traditional ways. (dubbel ???)

hier de samenvatting van Self-Blindness opnemen

Only by developing a special characteristic, a specific blindness for the own behaviour, blocking the utilization of intelligence for finding different options for satisfying urges concerning the own behaviour and social behaviour, could the intelligence of our early ancestors rise above the ordinary upper level of intelligence.

4) The Evolution of Power Structures

- Since the agricultural revolution a different type of evolution started off. That is the evolution of sets of "memes" that form power structures. Labeling the ordinary evolution, based on DNA, as "hardware"-evolution, that evolution of power structures can be labeled as a "software"-evolution. The point is that agriculture is technically impossible if there is not a military organization that secures the products of the agricultural efforts for the people who have made the investment in agricultural labour and work. This development is very recent, just between 5.000 and 10.000 years old in most regions of the world.

5) Evolutionary Jet-Lag

- The evolution of power structures can proceed at a higher speed than the evolution of DNA. Software needs less time to evolve and change than does hardware. Humans beings are the carriers of genes as well as of memes. Humanity is therefore suffering from evolutionary "jet-lag" in that our primordial hardware is lagging behind as compared to the demands from the recently evolved software of the power structures. This evolutionary jet-lag produces mismatches between what we "really" want (primordial P-feelings) and what the power structures demand from us ("new" N-demands).

6) N-demands versus P-feelings

- Power structures need high quantities of malleable, docile slaves and military to man the agricultural mass projects and the warring machinery. One of the methods to produce high percentages of docile people is inducing neurotic states in as many of the human beings/carriers involved as possible. Neurotics may function sub-optimal as compared to their original congenital potential, but they can easier be manipulated into obeying the requirements of the power structures in charge. It is therefore not surprising that the data available to us indicate that indeed in the case of contemporary human societies the full actualization of the innate potentials is the exception, rather than the rule, as it has always been in other species.

7) Means of subjugation

- We can recognize several mechanisms in the working of human societies that help to keep the carriers of the power structures subdued and immersed in neuroticizing processes of control and deformation. We mention a few:

- We maintain schooling systems that "inject" knowledge but that block awareness of the CEL dynamics, which results in blocking self-actualization.

- We instill and maintain "working" ethics to the extent that it is detrimental for optimal frequencies of meta-motivational reversals (see the article about learning experiments with house mice) (see more details about the CEL here).

- We seduce captains of industry and captains of other systems of slavery to continue doing their job with exorbitant salaries.

- We turn spiritual movements gradually into religions of superstition and blindness.

- We maintain strict information privileges for the people in control of the masses that are kept stupid.

- The innate propensity for Self-Blindness in humans is amplified where possible.

- The Blindness for the own system of feelings and impulses is so rudimentary, that in all languages that I am familiar with, there is not even a word for the most elementary and most basic of all emotional and motivational switches in our behaviour. We have words for fear, love, hate, pleasure, panic, curiosity, hesitation, anger, etc., but a word for the telic motivational state or its antagonist, the paratelic state does not exist. Words for those most elementary aspects of the dynamics of motivation and emotion needed to be coined artificially, borrowing it from the greek word "telos" or goal/target.

- etc.

8a) N-demands and the low level performance of human beings

- Taking the above findings and considerations together, a possible explanation of the strange rarity of self-actualization in the case of the human species emerges. That explanation is that since the agricultural revolution our species has been pushed in systems of neurotization and subjugation. The power structures, that are in the lead since that time, take a strongly lowered useful output per person for granted in exchange for a much higher malleability and docility of their carriers. Thus the power structures that neuroticized best could outcompete power structures that were less effective in that sense. If this view is correct, it would explain the at first sight incomprehensible phenomenon that the majority of the human species is functioning way below its congenital capacities and that in our species self-actualization is the exception rather than the rule, as it is in other species. Our species is in general considered as the pinnacle of (primate) evolution, and it almost exclusively consists of underperformers. How strange !

8b) N-demands versus the two Basic Options of the Learning System

- However, knowing how the mechanism of learning and development works, it is also clear that from a purely technical point of view, the opposite option in principle also exists, the option of a critical % of the population being in a state of self-actualization and as a consequence a very high likelihood of also attaining self-actualization for any individual in that population. Technically speaking, both options exist, although large and by humanity has not experienced the favourable option for many thousands of years (although there may be found some exceptions in remote corners of the earth where the power structures have not - yet - managed to establish their power.)

9) Modern developments undermining the customary subjugation props of the power structures

- Having researched the above mentioned mechanisms that help to keep the carriers of the power structures subdued and immersed in neuroticizing processes of control and deformation, we have reached the conclusion that many or most of these props as automatically and involuntarily (as evolution works) applied by power structures are quickly crumbling down under pressure of modern technical developments. We name a few of those developments that are ever more undermining the web of subjugation tricks that always served to keep us bound in slavery in whichever of the prevailing power structures: the information explosion, the democratization of information, the increasing transparency on all levels, family planning techniques, techniques for eugenic planning, unlimited availability of energy, technical innovations and machinery making slavery superfluous, etc., etc. (see here for more information about the new developments).

10) Conclusion

- Our estimate is that not only are we in a situation where the above developments are in a process of speeding up, undermining the previously absolute power of the impersonal power structures ever faster, but also that we are in the phase of the exponential rise in the average chance for individuals to attain full actualization of their innate potential. That would imply that we are getting closer and closer to the inflection point that we have labeled as Point Omega. The conclusion is not only that Homo sapiens does have the very realistic option to become immeasurably more effective, but that we are in fact very close to that shift, a shift that is likely to happen with unexpected suddennes and unexpected speed, similar to what happens with the above mentioned acid-base solution when we add the last drop of acid to the solution before it suddenly swaps to a couple of pH grades rise per drop, changing the indicator-colouring all of a sudden.

So, taking the 9 findings as mentioned above together, our conclusion is that a Point Omega transition is near. And that transition not only will launch humanity in its next evolutionary phase, but the whole planet Earth will enter a different phase in its evolutionary development because ............ intelligence will finally start to understand itself.