Meditation As A Stage Of Evolution

I was reading about meditation on, the home of questionable facts, Wikipedia the other day and saw an interesting suggestion regarding meditation being what caused the next step in the evolution of homo-sapiens. Here's the link to the abstract:

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbs...ge=online&aid=676032

This makes perfect sense to me, particularly if we take Kenneth's interpretation of enlightenment, and our current understanding of the Theravadan 4-Path map, as a physio-energetic development and consider it as part of our evolution as a species, i.e. our natural birthright as human beings. If that were the case, then each of us, and those who've worked towards the completion of this bio-energetic circuit over last 2500+ years, really are making a fundamental change for the benefit of our fellow beings by pushing the evolutionary envelope.

The relatively recent "hardcore dharma" approach is showing more people that these changes are indeed possible, natural even!

What's your take on this idea?

With regard to evolution there is only one thing that matters -- is there a survivability component to the change so that those who have the change will pass it along to their offspring genetically? So... how does what I do on the cushion get passed along to my children through a genetic mechanism?

Chris, I think the question with regard to natural selection is does the genetic variation that causes you to be interested in meditation add to your survivability? Your genes get passed to your children either way. But if the gene that causes you to meditate also helps you survive longer, your children may also survive longer. Whether the "meditation gene" exists or whether it aids in the survival of an individual is an open question.

Yes. And we'll have to wait another 250,000 years or so before we can be sure of the answer!

Yes, Kenneth, I agree. I was thinking maybe someone was proposing non-Mendelian mechanism

"
With regard to evolution there is only one thing that matters -- is there a survivability component to the change so that those who have the change will pass it along to their offspring genetically? So... how does what I do on the cushion get passed along to my children through a genetic mechanism?

"

Chris-- new info emerging on inheritance of acquired characteristics, specifically the transferance of stress hormone levels from parents who undergo trauma to their offspring regardless of whether they raise them. I'll look up the reference but it seems that we are discovering some complexities way beyond neo-darwinian genetic inheritance orthodoxy.
-Jake

Also hard to argue that behavioral and technological, social and cultural patterns have an effect on survivability, so if survivability is your criteria for defining what's evolutionary then lots of stuff besides genes are relevant to evolution, just as prior to the emergence of life, other mechanisms were operative in the survivability of various patterns of material organization. In short, it seems to come down to how you define "evolution", and on what basis you do so.

I love you guys. This is ultra geeky.

This is not an area of expertise for me, so a lot of questions come up for me.

First, what's the difference between 'development' and 'evolution'?

Along that same thread, assuming the two are different in some way, are they inextricably related? And if so, how?

Developmental aspects of human nature seem to arise when given the appropriate environment to do so. What may have evolved is a capacity for meditative development, for whatever reason. But it still seems to be optional, at least at this point, to put one's self through the appropriate training. Other types of development result from conditioning (i.e. less-conscious training).

So (I hope some of this makes sense to someone -- anyone -- in here), in terms of Darwinian evolution via natural selection, it's hard to determine whether an evolved mechanism that supports meditative development was something that evolved to support that specific end. It could very well be a secondary effect caused by a mechanism that served/serves another purpose entirely.

Or not.

EDIT: Spelling.

Good points Jackson.

I think the state of the modern evolutionary synthesis (of Darwin and genetics) is so young, and largely speculative, that it makes it tricky to make definitive statements about what "evolution" is in the mainstream view, and the whole thing opens up pretty wide when you start to look at some of the fringe stuff that's emerging (differentiating "fringe" science from pseudoscience).

One of the huge challenges, missing pieces, in the mainstream version is the relationship between genes and development. I'm using development in the sense of an individual's development here. So even in terms of the development of physical form, both in utero and thereafter towards physical maturity, we don't really know what the causality is between genes and the development of form. Now this is leaving experience out of it altogether, just talking the development of physical bodies. No idea of the actual causal mechanisms between genes and form! Everyone agrees that there is probably some causality there, and obviously there is a lot of interesting correlation, but it's by no means established that genes --> cause physical form, and that's that. There seem to be many "epigenetic" processes which influence it that we know of, and it seems like a sheer article of faith that an entirely genetic causality of morphological development will be discovered. For instance, see that evidence I mentioned above, which indicates that hormone exposure in utero is correlated with rabbits having more or less male offspring later when they attain sexual maturity and breed. Yet (I think) there's no genetic change due to the initial exposure. So (in this case) stress hormones in the mother, leads to unknown but not genetic changes in her daughters, which effects the genetics of her grandchildren at least insofar as her daughters' propensity for having male or female children. Crazy!

I should really have defined my terms before I posted that..

I'm not talking about genetic transmission, Darwinian natural selection or any physical laws of development, I was referring to personal development in the physio-energetic sense as it's discussed on here. Apologies for not making that clear enough.

My theory, inspired by that particular link provided above, was this: Our ancestors discovered, quite possibly by accident, that directed concentration will lead to an altered state of consciousness. This was the root of meditation and these experiences have been known, explored and quite possibly recorded in some visual form such as cave paintings (according to Robert Anton Wilson in Prometheus Rising, he mentions that anthropologists have discovered cave painting which appear to demonstrate instructions for attaining, what he refers to as, 5th circuit consciousness i.e. bliss and somatic rapture, which actually sounds quite similar to 1st jhana now I think about it).

I could speculate that these practices may have led to the development of religion through an anthropomorphic representation of the Absolute, the development of society due to an increased awareness of compassion and co-existence, etc etc but I'm unlikely to actively pursue the theory as I see no practical use for it at present. It was just an idea that I thought seemed easy to understand if we consider enlightenment as a developmental landmark, a physio-energetic circuit being completed which changes ones relationship with the world.

So, I'm using evolution here to refer to the ongoing process of natural physio-energetic development as pursued by those practicing techniques such as vipassana.

I don't think there's much doubt about natural selection/evolution as it relates to the fact that it works through the passing of genetic traits from parent to offspring. All the complexity around that is daunting and still in many cases mysterious. That's very different from understanding how genes express form in an organism, which is what Jake described and which we don't understand very well.

But we certainly know enough to create organisms from scratch, as Craig Venter and his team did not too long ago. And understand it enough to be able to program traits using artificial means, as a large number of research teams have done in recent years. Frankly, it's possible that within the not-too-distant future we'll have full control over our own genetic destiny, which will make this whole conversation obsolete.

I do think Jackson is right to be a little skeptical about the "purpose" of meditation. Who knows why it's there? And it does appear to be optional, and the connection to survivability thereby seems tenuous. But who knows? We used to think tomatoes were poisonous to eat.

"Also hard to argue that behavioral and technological, social and cultural patterns have an effect on survivability, so if survivability is your criteria for defining what's evolutionary then lots of stuff besides genes are relevant to evolution, just as prior to the emergence of life, other mechanisms were operative in the survivability of various patterns of material organization. In short, it seems to come down to how you define "evolution", and on what basis you do so. "

I'm not sure I understand your comment, Jake. It seems pretty obvious to me that social, technological and cultural advances are survival positive. Or am I missing your point? "Evolution," if you ask an evolutionary biologist (there's one in my family, by dint of luck), is the process of genetic modification through inheritance as a way to adapt and survive in local environments. I've been assuming we're talking about biological evolution and natural selection, not the broader definition that some non-biologists adopt, as some folks seem to use the word "evolution" to mean "change."

Interesting turn this has taken.....goddamned it I love this site. Ha!

Ha! You caught me. I mis-wrote that, for sure!!! I'll refrain from editing it to keep the flow of the thread, buyt yeah, it should have read "have NO effect", in other words, those factors obviously have an effect on survivability

Also I think there's something to be said for the notion of all-pervasive evolution as a natural force at least as significant as entropy. In this sense, it refers to the tendency for Universe to give rise to patterns (of energy-matter-consciousness exchange flows) of greater differentiation/integration, which build on "earlier" less complex patterns. Holotropy if you will. This seems like a pretty straightforward way of describing what we know of the history of our local Universe. Now, this says nothing about any "purpose" to this process, just that this is a useful/meaningful description. And in that context, I think contemplative development could be seen as part of that process in that the way experience functions for more awakened individuals is (at least potentially) more differentiated-integrated than for individuals who have not undergone much development of that sort. But of course at this point I'm not really talking about biological evolution at all, but a (seemingly) much broader trend (apparently) intrinsic to Universe/Nature/Reality.

I agree with what you're saying, Jake, but I think that this holistic, pervasive, non-biological organizing force needs a name other than "evolution" so people like me don't get confused.

There is also something to be said for the notion that intelligence/consciousness plays a part in not just the appearance but maybe even the organization of the universe.

The neuroscientist authors of Buddha's Brain actually argue for the evolutionary roots of samsara. A human who had a tendency to, say, stare at the shimmering dewdrops on a leaf in a state of non-dual union for hours at a time would have been easy prey for the likes of saber-toothed cats. It would have been, as the authors say, "aum mani padme--CHOMP!"
By contrast, an organism that is constantly on the lookout for multiple threats, its mind flitting from one target to the next, is going to do better. You have to be able to spot simultaneous threats, like a rival male making a move on your territory/mates, even as a saber-toothed cat circles the perimeter and licks its chops. The argument is that being in a perpetual state of stress, being on red alert all the time, favors survival. Likewise, aggressive, strong and violent individuals are going to do better, rather than beings who are dialed in to the brahma viharas.
It's interesting that some people now make the argument that civilization is starting to select against aggressive, violent individuals. The idea is that they don't live as long these days because of the dangerous nature of their behavior, whereas some office worker somewhere is good to go. And of course, we can stare at leaves now since we're the apex predator.
But of course, you could also make the argument that intense concentration is ideal for stalking prey. The survivalist Tom Brown Jr. claims that there were Native American stalkers who were so quiet and so slowed down and concentrated that they could get close enough to an animal to touch it. Overall, I'm skeptical of some of the claims out there that we're on the verge of a massive shift in consciousness, etc. I think Andrew Cohen's people refer to themselves as "Evolutionaries."
It's a very humans-as-the-center-of-the-universe kind of view, but our survival as a species seems very uncertain at this point.

Yeah, all the boolean and darwinian logic folks come up with to speculate about the survival value of things like concentration and meditation can certainly get out of control. But it's still fun to speculate.

Have any of you guys listened to Shinzen Young's "Science of Enlightenment"? He speculates a-la Tom Brown that early peoples having fewer distractions had a stark choice with daily hardships to pay attention mindfully, and speculates that they probably lived with greater mindfulness and equanimity than we do today. This seems to square with my experiences of people from cultures that are closer to the land, including elderly folks from up here in Vermont who grew up on farms. On the other hand J you describe the survival value of dualistic consciousness really well. So maybe a both/and was in play, and maybe we're now entering a bottleneck our survival through which requires a choice between those two modes.
@Chris-- OK, fantastic clarification. Thank you so much; I'll confess that's never occurred to me but what a great point. I'm off to the workshop to come up with such a term!!!

My guess would be that it's the integration of the two modes - concentration and dualistic awareness - that makes us so adaptable over time and so successful as a species. They key seems to be the appropriate use of one or the other consciousness at the right time.

Yes. Without a sense of being a differentiated, self-organizing system, the organism wouldn't have much of a survival instinct.

"The argument is that being in a perpetual state of stress, being on red alert all the time, favors survival. Likewise, aggressive, strong and violent individuals are going to do better, rather than beings who are dialed in to the brahma viharas.
It's interesting that some people now make the argument that civilization is starting to select against aggressive, violent individuals. The idea is that they don't live as long these days because of the dangerous nature of their behavior, whereas some office worker somewhere is good to go. And of course, we can stare at leaves now since we're the apex predator." ~jgroove

Those are some good points.

One thing that people tend to forget about "evolution by natural selection" is that (in theory) it isn't really all that concerned with individual survival. Rather, the behaviors seen to carry an evolutionary advantage are those that keeps one's genetic material going in the system. Violent and Aggressive behaviors may result in death at an earlier age. But, in polygynous societies (which has been the norm for the greater part of human history), where multiple having multiple "wives" was the rule rather than the exception, men who were aggressive and violent may have been better and defeating their competition. If being aggressive means getting laid and having offspring, dying early isn't much of a consequence (in an evolutionary sense; not in terms of the conscious human psyche).

So in light of this, I would have to agree with the "Buddha's Brain" authors that Darwinian evolution seems more like a force that perpetuates a samsara-like condition. Somewhere along the way our intelligence reached a point where it could game the system and break free of it. Reminds me of the Matrix trilogy

In its most basic form, natural selection is really only about preserving DNA - the survival of genetic material from one generation to the next, Everything else is just the envelope, so to speak. See Dawkins, et al.

I agree, Jackson, intelligence is like a virus

" Reminds me of the Matrix trilogy
"

Anyone here take the red pill?