|
Post by bewildered on Sept 27, 2013 17:11:38 GMT -6
LOL tomorrow may not exist as a fact, but if i don't consider past present and future as a whole never ending circle then I would be a mess LOL I think we are maybe talking about two different things? I am talking about no separation of time. basically past present and future all exist at the same time. Maybe this will explain it? I remember yesterday, and choose today, so that I may have a better tomorrow when it becomes today. They are all the same thing in my head. I am saying that time itself is an invention, an agreement reached through consensus and reinforced in our societies as an essential component of enculturation. Enculturation is the process by which one generation coerces the next generation into adopting their particular set of rules, traditions, institutions, and language. This process doesn't create an exact duplicate of the cultural pattern since individual variation and new experiences cause change to occur to the paradigm. I find that certain features seem to remain mostly intact regardless of what happens, like calendars and systems of measurement. Those appear to be the most resistant to change. Here's a great example: the measurement system currently used in the United States. It employs a macrosystem (a scheme dealing with large amounts) using powers of 3: 12 inches to a foot, 36 inches (3 feet) to a yard, 5280 feet (1760 yards) to a mile, and so on. This is complicated by a fractional microsystem (a method to deal with small amounts) based upon multiples of 4 (quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty-secondths, sixty-fourths). It's a convoluted system lending itself to woeful inaccuracies, yet it has persisted from generation to generation. Attempts to replace this beast with a more efficient and precise system - the metric system - met with failure over the years. The metric system is exceedingly simple, for everything - from liquid volume, weight, to measurement - is based exclusively on powers of 10. The usefulness of the American system can only be objectively analyzed according to its present relevance. For most of our history, we were an agricultural society. Our system of measurement was relevant to our mode of life during that period when precision wasn't a necessity. I'm sure you've heard of a "country mile," right? LOL, I had my first experience with country miles back when I was trying to find places in the Texas hill country. The hill country is enchanting and awesome, to say the least...and I met some singularly fascinating people out there. Life is different in the hill country, and I mean that in a positive way. When a hill country native would tell me that the place I wanted to go was "two miles down that road over there," what they really meant was five or seven miles. Back on track: the industrial revolution took time, and more than one war, to transform the United States into a fully industrialized society. When this took hold, the need for precision measurement was paramount. The technical, scientific, and military establishments started using the metric system because the unifying power of 10 permitted a level of accuracy that couldn't be achieved using the standard American system. Despite this salient fact, the standard system continued to be used nationwide, and people refused to consider anything else. In the 1980s, the federal government wanted to ditch the standard system in favor of the metric system. As a kid living overseas, I attended Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) located on the military bases where my father was stationed. Because this school system was (and still is) completely under the control of the federal government, we had mandatory metric system training in our math classes. Instead of teaching us the basics of the metric system, we received instruction in how to convert from standard American measurements to their metric equivalents! Needless to say, most students didn't perform very well using conversion tables and executing the mathematical formulas required to effect accurate conversions. As a result, the effort to convert to the metric system failed. It was deemed too complicated. This is an object lesson in the following: how we think determines what we think. In order to truly understanding something that departs from your own bias and comfort zone, you must be willing to study that something in terms relative to how it operates and exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 13:52:22 GMT -6
Thank You for clarifying, Bewildered.
When we were seeming to talk about our souls somehow existing in different planes of existence, and the "wheel" we seem to be on, I was questioning my own concept of age, and the bias about the human aging process.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Sept 28, 2013 19:55:44 GMT -6
It's rather interesting that aging is actually due to code in DNA getting "switched on" rather than the consequence of time passing by. Once it is switched on, the mRNA + tRNA builds protein chains that cause certain processes in the body to take place, which results in effects that we see with our own eyes. If these code sequences didn't activate, we'd never "age."
Mitosis creates exact duplicates of the parent cell, meaning we can't effectively "age" or change the qualities of our cells unless something tells it to. That's where DNA pairs into play.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Sept 28, 2013 20:46:36 GMT -6
I remember when they tried to force us to learn the metric system in school. Gawd, what a nightmare! All those millimeters and decimeters and killameters and whateverameters...I couldn't remember any of that stuff. I learned our current system of measurements before I was even in school. I don't see any reason to change it.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Sept 28, 2013 20:55:58 GMT -6
And all this time I thought it was my bad kids making me old...... Seriously though I did not know that about genetics being to blame for aging. It would seem logical then, if we could inhibit or isolate that piece of dna people would not age. That subject reminds me of an article I read about the 12th strand of dna being the link to the shadow dna. When activate it puts one in closer contact with their souls abilities.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Sept 29, 2013 11:39:22 GMT -6
skywalker: Hehe. Yep, that's what I meant by forcing people to make conversions from one system to another rather than simply changing to a different system. The metric system is actually so simple, it's a crime. It's all about powers of ten: 1000 millimeters in a meter, 100 centimeters in a meter. 1000 meters in a kilometer, 100000 centimeters in a kilometer, 1000000 millimeters in a kilometer. Weight and volume: 1000 milligrams in a gram, 100 centigrams in a gram. 1000 grams in a kilogram, 100000 centigrams in a kilogram, 1000000 milligrams in a kilogram. The number system we use is based on powers of ten, not powers of three or four. To put it another way, our number system is a decimal system. The metric system uses our standard number system...a base-10 system. American standard measurements use base-3 and base-4. Needlessly complicated. And all this time I thought it was my bad kids making me old...... Seriously though I did not know that about genetics being to blame for aging. It would seem logical then, if we could inhibit or isolate that piece of dna people would not age. That subject reminds me of an article I read about the 12th strand of dna being the link to the shadow dna. When activate it puts one in closer contact with their souls abilities. DNA contains the blueprints for life. RNA is the messenger and transcriber of DNA, and ribosomes are the factories (molecular machines!) that make protein chains according to the data supplied by RNA. I like to picture it this way: DNA are the plans, RNA are the architects and the supervisors, and the ribosomes are the construction crews of life. The double helix of a DNA molecule is prodded to partially "unzip" by mRNA in order to acquire a particular coded sequence of pairs. It bonds with tRNA and then locks on to a series of ribosomes. These ribosomes crank out complex protein chains according to the code "lifted" from the DNA molecule until a "stop" message is reached. The chain then breaks off, the ribsomes float away, and the RNA is recycled. Granted, this is a simplified version of what takes place, but it works. When a cell divides, the DNA molecule completely "unzips," separating in half. Each half attracts the nucleotides it bonds with: adenine with thymine (A T), and cytosine with guanine (C G). This creates an exact duplicate of the DNA molecule. Each DNA molecule contains approximately 3 billion base pairs of A, T, C, and G. Everything about your body is contained in those pairs. Somewhere in the mix, the code for aging is found. If that could be turned "off," you'd never age. EDIT: I should add that it's highly unlikely that the aging process is dictated by one base pair. Most scientists suspect it is governed by a number of different pairs having a cumulative effect upon body systems. If only it were as simple as disabling one portion of our DNA...
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Sept 30, 2013 12:54:23 GMT -6
If only it were as simple as turning off the aging process. I don't think I would care for not aging. Granted, I feel like crap today due to aging process, I had some mild heart issues yesterday yuck But in the big picture of things, old age allows us to appreciate life on a deeper level. If it weren't so short I don't think people would care as much.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 1, 2013 8:06:30 GMT -6
I concur. There is something singularly unique about arriving as you are, and existing in a manner harmonious with your personal expression. I'm not an advocate of genetic manipulation, though I do find the "secrets" of DNA to be fascinating.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 2, 2013 7:35:33 GMT -6
Genetic manipulation would be great if we could stop issues like severe physical deformity. But then you have a big can of worms with that one. Every action has a reaction and every cause an effect, if we managed to stamp out one thing would that open the road to something worse? I am big on the chaos and ripple effect theory. I think a lot of people don't stop to think as to what there actions could lead to very well before doing something. Since you have some genetic knowledge, have you heard of the shadow dna? Last I looked into it there had been some documentation on it but I don't know if that was ever debunked or shown to be a hoax. This whole conversation reminds me of the movie Gattica. There is no gene for the human spirit lol.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 9, 2013 21:48:37 GMT -6
I agree that we must tread very, very carefully when it comes to DNA and our genetics. I would rather focus on our species learning how to get along and work together than manipulating iRNA to tinker with those 3 billion base pairs in the DNA molecule. Let's come up with solutions to our energy woes, find innovative ways to coexist with the planet's ecosystems and life forms, and eventually build a base on the Moon or Mars, and leave our genetics alone. There is one very distinct advantage to exploring DNA and how our bodies really work, though. Did you know that one DNA molecule can function as a quantum computing system? Imagine trillions of such computers inhabiting a single drop of water. They wouldn't require electricity, and would be far more powerful than anything we build today.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 10, 2013 9:31:36 GMT -6
I agree that we must tread very, very carefully when it comes to DNA and our genetics. I would rather focus on our species learning how to get along and work together than manipulating iRNA to tinker with those 3 billion base pairs in the DNA molecule. Let's come up with solutions to our energy woes, find innovative ways to coexist with the planet's ecosystems and life forms, and eventually build a base on the Moon or Mars, and leave our genetics alone. There is one very distinct advantage to exploring DNA and how our bodies really work, though. Did you know that one DNA molecule can function as a quantum computing system? Imagine trillions of such computers inhabiting a single drop of water. They wouldn't require electricity, and would be far more powerful than anything we build today. I can imagine that, and frankly it scares the hell out of me seeing what humans do with excessive amounts of power now. That would be enough power to either wipe out the earths energy issues, or crack it in half taking us all with it. My husbands argument to alien contact is why would any advanced alien species be interested in us or this planet? We are fundamentally insane, and located in a messy corner of the galaxy behind a cloud of mist. I think he got that from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but anyway, my point is in what you said, power. There is more untapped energy on this planet than people know what to do with. yet humans still bicker and fight over fossil fuels. It is pathetic really. We spend a ton of money of stupid things, why not on research into alternative power besides the standard wind and solar? I will tell you why, lobbyists for oil tycoons. Years ago there was a news report, I remember seeing it as a kid and reading the news article in school as well as seeing it on tv about a carburetor that was getting 75 mpg. Then it was bought by the Chrysler corporation and disappeared right along with the guy who designed it. I even had a little yugo that got 56 mpg back in 1989. What the heck happened? Oil greed happened and it is tearing the world apart. You know another thing comes to mind on the whole power in a drop of water thing, the human body is 70% water. Wouldn't the world be a scary place if we could harness that power inside of the human body. I believe we already can and the knowledge has just been forgotten over the many generations.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 10, 2013 13:43:15 GMT -6
I'm particularly interested in dark energy, a substance that is hypothesized to constitute 68.3% of the mass of the known universe, and the force responsible for the expansion of the cosmos. It's literally everywhere and permeates everything. Imagine what we could do if we were capable of harnessing it.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 10, 2013 14:48:25 GMT -6
Imagine what would happen if that dark matter permeated the entire universe.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 10, 2013 17:06:50 GMT -6
Imagine what would happen if that dark matter permeated the entire universe. It does.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 10, 2013 17:24:39 GMT -6
Imagine what would happen if that dark matter permeated the entire universe. It does. And where does the light matter fit into this?
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 10, 2013 17:51:25 GMT -6
And where does the light matter fit into this? Here's an article about dark energy. It's hypothesized to exist, meaning that at this point, the existence of such a force is suggested by observable quantum attributes of the known universe. There's no such thing as "light energy" in relation to dark energy, unless you are referring to light itself or other visible electromagnetic phenomena. Consider dark matter (which is also hypothesized to exist): it cannot be observed, and apparently neither emits nor absorbs light nor other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, it apparently interacts with visible matter and radiation, and based upon this inference, it is thought to constitute roughly 85% of the matter in the universe (matter as a whole, both physical and dark, represents about 4.9% of the mass of the known universe). Dark energy and dark matter are both inferred and cannot be directly observed. Dark energy suffuses the universe, daymoon. It is thought to be the force that compels the entire universe to expand.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 11, 2013 7:25:42 GMT -6
It was once thought that dark matter did not exist, maybe we just haven't found light matter yet? I guess I am just looking at it from a funky viewpoint? Kind of like everything has it's opposite. How can dark exist without light? If dark matter cannot or does not allow the permeation of light, then there has to be a substance that is perpetual light that darkness cannot snuff out.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 11, 2013 23:05:05 GMT -6
It was once thought that dark matter did not exist, maybe we just haven't found light matter yet? I guess I am just looking at it from a funky viewpoint? Kind of like everything has it's opposite. How can dark exist without light? If dark matter cannot or does not allow the permeation of light, then there has to be a substance that is perpetual light that darkness cannot snuff out. Dark matter is still hypothetical at this point, daymoon. It appears to be inferred, which means that it has not been observed. What you are calling "light matter" is the manifestation of energy you presently perceive with your eyes and touch with your hands. It reflects light and other electromagnetic radiation, meaning that it can be observed. Your body, your computer, and the bird outside perched on a branch of the tree can be seen and observed due to the "light" matter qualities they exhibit. One way to understand the relationship between dark matter and ordinary matter is that they do not necessarily "oppose" one another; they effectively coexist in differing ratios. A planetoid comprised of dark matter would effectively be invisible to our perspective. However, when you stop to consider that the majority of your body is actually empty space...and dark matter is effectively invisible...there is more to you than meets the eye. That "empty space" could very well be dark matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 10:32:26 GMT -6
One way to understand the relationship between dark matter and ordinary matter is that they do not necessarily "oppose" one another; they effectively coexist in differing ratios. A planetoid comprised of dark matter would effectively be invisible to our perspective. However, when you stop to consider that the majority of your body is actually empty space...and dark matter is effectively invisible...there is more to you than meets the eye. That "empty space" could very well be dark matter. Empty, Dark . . . . . the way you express these terms here, we really have nothing to fear . Coexisting instead of opposing. Fear comes up because this is the unknown. Hypothetically, you make all this sound known. I like it simplified like this .
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 13, 2013 10:38:47 GMT -6
I think we are looking at it from two different view points, your being science, mine being spiritual. When I think of dark matter, I think of the shadow people and them being the absence of light. I equate them as being something awful because my experience with them has been bad. I also view the light and dark as being alive with energy. I am trying to separate dark matter in my head from the absolute darkness I have dealt with but it is difficult. I can't help but to feel like dark matter is where the shadow people came from.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 13, 2013 14:50:30 GMT -6
Science (to oversimplify) is merely the acquisition of knowledge through observation, daymoon. It is a tool. Spirituality lacks a broadly consensual meaning, and so it means different things to different people. My own spirituality is guided by experiential learning; to me, it functions as a metascience that incorporates standard and non-standard observation and experience. I've learned that "good" and "evil" are artificial polarities assigned values by an observer/participant. It's usually shaped by ideograms and not situational awareness, and fueled by dogma instead of relativity.
The fellow who steals bread has broken the law. Lawbreaking is considered "bad" and undesirable by society...but when you look at why this guy stole bread, the validity of dogma and static value judgments begin to appear questionable. His family was starving, and he was desperate to feed them. Is that bad?
I appreciate your point of view, though. You have good reason to feel the way that you do. I would ask you to think about the assignment of "evil" to dark matter because of the actions and behaviors of those shadow people. The same conclusion could be reached concerning us, too, meaning that "light" matter is just as corrupt as dark matter is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2013 11:26:18 GMT -6
I think we are looking at it from two different view points, your being science, mine being spiritual. When I think of dark matter, I think of the shadow people and them being the absence of light. I equate them as being something awful because my experience with them has been bad. I also view the light and dark as being alive with energy. I am trying to separate dark matter in my head from the absolute darkness I have dealt with but it is difficult. I can't help but to feel like dark matter is where the shadow people came from. Hi Daymoon . I'm trying to incorporate the two (science and spiritual). Like, something in Space, called a "Black Hole", would instantly have a sense of fear to it, because of my conditioning. And not just the word "Black" (as in darkness), but think of the word "hole", by itself. Does that bring up positive images? Pot hole, a hole in my clothes, etc. And by the way, we have a thread on TEOR here about the "Shadow People". I have seen them and would love to hear about your experiences. Well, "love" isn't the right word. And I guess that's what I'm trying to come to terms with myself. That words cannot really be the carriers of certain messages. I know, for example, that here on this Earth, in our atmosphere, I usually can walk into a dark room, and use a flashlight to see. Is this true if the room is full of smoke? How about something raining down like volcanic ash? And then, can I walk into a lit room, and cause it to be dark by any device? Well, I can shut drapes, and limit the amount of light that gets to a certain area. Generally speaking, we know that here on Earth light can permeate the darkness. But in Space, if someone were to shine a light into say, a Black Hole, would that light illuminate what we are seeing? Or would it appear to be absorbed (in a fashion)? Dark Matter, as its seen in the Universe, out in Space, seems to have a mass, all its own. I like the way that Bewildered directed us to thinking how a planet would seem invisible. Along those lines, we think that if a planet is shrouded in "darkness" that our concept of "life" is not going on here. Also, in reference to our universe expanding, we don't "see" that dark matter expanding, but a shift maybe in how Space looks. I used to think, "How do scientists know that the star I'm seeing tonight, has already died?" If I personally see something way out in Space, go dark, who's to say it wasn't "swallowed by a Black Hole", or otherwise shrouded by some sort of darkness? It's mind boggling if you think about it. . . including measuring things by the speed of light. Theoretically, we know the speed of light in this environment from years of research. How many other environments do we know so well? I'm sure there are people who would scoff that we sometimes see "shadow people". And myself, thinking about if I had time to shine a flashlight on such an individual, would my light go thru it, seem to be absorbed by it, or show some small detail on its person? By studying the properties of light, and our perception, I believe that we are able to possibly make something invisible to the human eye. Conversely, I think it would be harder to make something undetectable by radar, but which process came first? Lol. Auras. People claim to see them also, and we have that "Kirlian Photography". In the photos, however, I believe that the "auras" are pretty identical in "thickness" and color. People that see auras, see them in many variations. The example I start with, I feel that anyone can see if they try. A bright pink comb, floating in a white bathtub of clear water, has a pink "aura". If I can visualize that the air we breathe and walk through, actually has a "thickness" to it like clear water, that the air has to move because it is displaced (?) by whatever object moving through it, then I should be able to see auras around almost anything. Including a bright pink comb that someone is holding. Had I heard about "Auras" as a child? No, because I would have received some sort of conditioning about it, . As it is, someone explained to me what they were seeing, and I saw it too. Unfortunately, someone realized a long time ago that they could hide what they were doing in the dark. Our imaginations run wild with that one, and people have taken advantage of that. And then I wonder about some peoples ability to see better than others in the dark. It's still Science. If we were to look at that person's retina, they may have a slight variation in their rods and cones. Or would their brain be different? Something physical as we know it, would be able to explain this. And that's why we can come up with something like night goggles . I imagine someone trying to come up with a way to record a "spiritual experience". They seem to come up randomly, so how can they be studied by Science? Even if we were to observe someones brain waves, while they were just praying, would we be able to see if they made contact with something else? I think this is a reasonable goal. To me, if electrowhatevers can somehow detect a residue, or "presence" in a building that someone wants to refer to as "ghosts", that being pretty random in itself, what is the next step? The other day I looked up the "Marfa lights". It has been proven that most of them are lights that are normally visible to people on Earth. Some of them may be plasma balls. Try looking up plasma balls. Anyway, I think we've been brainwashed into thinking that darkness is bad. It has its purpose in safety, as we live life today, but I would like to think that we have the ability to adapt. Someone born blind is a good example of that. I know that I can drive a car, and they can't, but if both of us had to be on our feet dodging a moving object unexpectedly, who would do better? Of course I think I would. My uncle, has been blind for over 20 years with diabetes. Because of the way the blood vessels leaked in his retinas, he has some peripheral vision. The other day I made some comment about him not putting his cane on a top of newspapers that would slide, as he braced himself to get up out of his seat. I reached down to move the papers, and you know what that ornery guy did? Yeah, he purposely jabbed my hand with his cane (lightly). I'm rambling. I've seen two kinds of "shadow people". The kind that seems like smothering, thick oil. And a kind that if I was able to quickly flash a light on them, there would most likely not even be a shadow. Another poster here, Randy, got me to thinking about what a real shadow is-something literally blocking the light. And it must be moving to stay undetected. . .
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 14, 2013 19:30:12 GMT -6
Maybe we have been brainwashed into thinking the dark is bad? The darkness isn't bad, but the things living in it could be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2013 23:36:15 GMT -6
The same conclusion could be reached concerning us, too, meaning that "light" matter is just as corrupt as dark matter is. best answer yet. (its all about what a person is familiar with, )
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 15, 2013 6:55:07 GMT -6
Oh wow, that just opens a huge barrel of wormy philosophical dirt doesn't it? I believe the Chinese yin yang illustrates it best. There is a point of darkness at the center of the light and a point of light in the darkness. I am feeling so random this morning, typing yin yang made me think of how people always call that symbol the YING YANG. UHG! a ying yang is Vietnamese slang for a mans winky and I have to crack up any time I hear somebody call it that LOL!
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 15, 2013 7:21:12 GMT -6
Oh wow, that just opens a huge barrel of wormy philosophical dirt doesn't it? I believe the Chinese yin yang illustrates it best. There is a point of darkness at the center of the light and a point of light in the darkness. I am feeling so random this morning, typing yin yang made me think of how people always call that symbol the YING YANG. UHG! a ying yang is Vietnamese slang for a mans winky and I have to crack up any time I hear somebody call it that LOL! A winky? LOL! People are, by default, mind-readers. This is something we study in anthropology as a unique feature of human communication. As far as we know, we are the only animals who do it. I've never encountered "winky" before, yet I knew what it referred to. Winky...I'll have to remember this one.
|
|
daymoon
Junior Member
The word of the day is,,,, C.O.P.E
Posts: 119
|
Post by daymoon on Oct 15, 2013 10:32:58 GMT -6
You have never encountered a winky before? Oh wow, I think I am going to leave the very long list of jokes that popped into my head about this comment alone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 19:11:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Oct 15, 2013 21:30:37 GMT -6
Maybe we have been brainwashed into thinking the dark is bad? The darkness isn't bad, but the things living in it could be. I don't think people would need to be brainwashed into thinking dark was bad. It probably was caused by millions of years of evolution. Predators have a tendency to hunt more at night and it's harder for people to see them in the dark. That right there could give dark a bad name. I once read a book about anthropology (or was it paleontology? ) and the author was discussing why people are so afraid of snakes and insects when we really have no reason to be. As large as we are most tiny little things like that aren't going to pose any serious threat to us but many people seem to have an extremely irrational fear of them...often even panicking just at the sight of something crawling or slithering towards them. The author then suggested that it could have originated millions of years before humans even evolved. They say that mammals originally started off as rodents living in burrows and holes in the ground and to a small rodent anything slithering or crawling into the burrow would definitely be a life threatening situation. Maybe our fear of snakes and insects is therefor an evolutionary fear that has been passed down from species to species from practically the beginning of mammalian life. So if that is true where did the fear of darkness come from? If rodents were used to living in burrows than they should actually welcome the darkness since that would be there preferred home. The "cavemen" used to live in caves which are also dark. Modern day people are similar to cavemen in that we build houses which basically are the same as artificial caves. Looking at it from that point of view people should prefer darkness rather than fear it. So why are people so afraid of it? Is it something that was acquired more recently since the invention of the electric light? Hmm...it seems I just contradicted my opening paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Oct 16, 2013 0:08:49 GMT -6
Our primate ancestors were nocturnal (something you still see in prosimians like Tarsiers today), but our particular line has been diurnal for millions of years. I'm certain that a fear of the dark was an adaptation crucial to their survival. Insects would have been a problem since they could potentially weaken you and perhaps transmit illness. While certain things seem "hardwired," you always find exceptions in individuals and even groups of people. The darkness doesn't make me nervous or uncomfortable, and arthropods don't bother me at all; my sisters, on the other hand, are petrified of both. Who knows...perhaps I was dropped on my head an infant.
|
|