ADVICE WHAT TO DO IF WE LIVE LIFE---- "AS IS"

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming 'Wow! What a Ride!'"

- Attributed to Hunter S. Thompson, with nods to Carl Jung, Albert Camus, and Charles Bukowski

"I see the path of progress for modern man in his occupation with his own self, with his inner being."

- T.S. Eliot

"Everything has been figured out, except how to live."

- Jean-Paul Sartre

"We do not need magic to transform our world. We carry all the power we need inside ourselves already. We have the power to imagine better."

- J.K. Rowling

"If world peace is to be established, peace in the individual must be established first."

- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

An old Russian joke: ( might be true in the US now )

The difference between an optimist and a pessimist in Moscow:

The pessimist believes things cannot get any worse.

The optimist replies: "Of course they could!"

EVIDENCE THAT LIFE IS A CREATOR'S DESIGN

This suggests intriguing scientific concepts and theories that suggest a designed universe. It bridges the gap between physical laws and the complexity of life, offering food for thought on the nature of existence.

Existing and Immutable Rules of Natural Physical Behavior and physics Constants

Within our space-time universe, logic can be translated (though perhaps not completely error-free, as per Gödel's hypothesis) into written symbols: Mathematics. This forms the foundation of our understanding, encompassing all universal constants and rules of space-time physics. Other Observed Natural Forces

1. Self-Organization: Alan Turing's concept of objects tendency to aggregate on their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlxn_QAv70E

2. Assembly Theory: Lee Cronin's ideas on selection and evolution - the inability to reverse engineer being a sign of an indeterminate force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaunsDtSgMA

3. Predetermined Electromagnetic Fields: Michael Levin's work on pattern effects at cellular and morphological levels. ( probably will get the NEXT NOBEL PRIZE in biology)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC2_S-wcJes&t=116s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bQWfmeB8

PHILOSOPHICAL Implied Irreducible Complexity This concept stems from intuitive thinking about assembly theory.

Boltzmann's Brain The existence of life and evolution appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics, implying an unknown spacetime principle or force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsy8p435DqM re

Already observed systematic behavior of life from known physics: Pre-planned Creation Formula enables human evolution and free will capacity. Possible forces propose initial rules for complex systems, which are then subjected to chaotic systems resulting in human formation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3H75_Xg18&t=109s

Known Systems that Co-joining Evolutional process to Chaos Systems with preexisting Rules Extremely small environmental influences affect various formulations of complex systems that produce life. A "creator" can propose the initial set of rules, which can then be subjected to chaotic systems that produce human formation. This also allows for free will.

resort to ANTHROPOMORPHISM to under stand.

WHY WOULD A "SENTIENT FORCE" even CREATE HUMANITY?

FOR Entertainment? We might be at a loss for salvation – "poor player that struts and frets on the stage of life" FOR Experiment? Using anthropomorphic reasoning, Homo sapiens may be failing an experiment and not meeting intended goals. Perhaps it's a test or trial run?

Is there a goal for human creation? What might it be? Testing the conflicts between survival and cohabitation with others? Is evolution still ongoing, possibly in our brains, intellect, or spirituality? Is the experiment over? Socially? Or is it about organization versus development of human potential?

Continuing with anthropomorphic thinking (which is all humans can do), it seems important to determine whether everything we experience occurs randomly or if there's a formula or pattern designed by an "intelligence." For simplicity, we often think of one intelligence, though it could be more than one participating process. If an intelligence created a plan to progress or evolve according to preplanned rules, why would it design one without a chance of success? Even a fragile existence could be a "test" which, in anthropomorphic thought, could go either way. Following this line of thinking, we may indeed be an experiment. If Homo sapiens has developed elevated communication and survival processes (such as speech and easier communication), then we should be able to figure out a way to succeed. It may take longer – Homo sapiens has only been around for about 300,000 years, while Homo neanderthalensis existed for about 400,000 years. The question remains: will we make it in time?:

HOW CAN WE CHANGE "IN-GROUP BEHAVIOR"?

When we examine the challenges of scaling human behavior from small groups to large societies. It raises important questions about the impact of our inherent traits on social structures and suggests that our success in controlling our environment hasn't necessarily translated to success in managing our relationships with each other.

Scaling of group behavior This webpage has attempted to document (in the first set of buttons) a true picture of Homo sapiens as a species, honestly portraying our development from primitive origins. It shows our struggle to elevate ourselves and successfully exert control over our surrounding environment (notwithstanding climate control), and our ability to manipulate natural, biological, and physical systems.

Traditional External Social Organizations Have Failed in Larger Groups

"People in Power" tend to mentally abstract and then dehumanize groups, potentially abusing humanity. Uncontrolled biomodulators (possibly dopamine and others) can remove restraint from neuromodulators (modified by underlying epigenetic influences) and may cause sociopathic and unrestrained egoism. Unfortunately, despite our progress in controlling our surroundings and comforts, Homo sapiens has done a poorer job of managing relationships with each other, especially in large groups. History documents that our species' competitive aggressiveness and conflict-oriented behavior are quite apparent, and potentially destructive to our species. These inherent qualities likely override our more positive behaviors - curiosity, constructiveness, and emotions of empathy and love as seen in family units.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTS57hkAUk Jordan Peterson's famus speach on " family"

Question: Assuming adequate environmental comfort was present in both groups, were Homo sapiens happier and safer in small groups (determined to be less than 250 people) than they are with the huge populations that exist today? The same qualities of competition, seeking, aggression when needed, and reward gratification in various activities - which allowed us to overcome our environment - are the same qualities that produce the wars, conflicts, contentious politics, and aggressions we see today in our large populations.

OF INTEREST Published July 1, 2024

An intriguing conversation on YouTube between two reputable and certified individuals whom I greatly respect is linked below . Interestingly, Brett Weinstein, in discussing how American society in 1995 had progressed closest to the desires of our "founding fathers," implied that "decent people" agreed with all people having equal access to their rights. This clearly demonstrates that just the organizational aspects of Homo sapiens in groups are being considered. Parenthetically, and probably subconsciously, Weinstein's reference to "decent people" alludes to those who have a better human nature - a sense of "extended family" with qualities of empathy and caring, which seems unattainable with large groups of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7knqsm2HAL8&t=197s "decent people"

Dave Rubin - Popular American political commentator and YouTube personality.

Bret Weinstein - Completed an undergraduate degree in biology in 1993 and earned a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of Michigan in 2009. He was a Washington State 2019–2020 James Madison Program Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, which continued for the 2020–2021 year. In 2021, Weinstein and Heying published their book, "A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century."

This emphasizes a point of this web presentation: societal organization alone is not enough to cure us; human nature itself needs to be modified to prevent recurring cycles of trauma. It's possible that ultimately, after extinction, Homo sapiens will be succeeded and replaced by a created Homo illustrada. If we are a "failed experiment," remember thi---: our Creator has all the time in the world

This is contemporary perspective on societal progress and human nature. It suggests that merely organizing society isn't sufficient for solving our problems - we may need to address fundamental aspects of human nature. The mention of a potential future species, Homo illustrada, adds a speculative element about human evolution.

HOW CAN WE CHANGE WHAT'S "UNDER THE HOOD"? (manifest as basic human nature) The question is: what would be the process for a new Homo sapiens that would work?

In this section we explore explores the challenges of modifying human behavior, especially in large groups. It raises important questions about the feasibility and ethics of technological interventions in human biology and behavior. The cautious approach suggested here reflects an understanding of the complexity of human nature and the potential risks of attempting to change it.

Previously mentioned qualities are essentially the ones that allowed Homo Sapiens to reach our current point regarding environmental challenges. But are these same qualities now producing conflict situations between individual Homo sapiens and large-scale groups? Now that we have, for the most part, conquered environmental challenges, can we conquer Homo sapiens' tendencies for group problems without damaging their productivity? In a logical or scientific way, how can we prevent Homo sapiens from over-competing and over-aggressing against other Homo sapiens?

It seems in larger groups, the Homo sapiens brain cannot maintain the identification process of "family" which is present in small groups (now determined to be around 250). It is rare to see this” family recognition” problem overcome by “ power level” Homo sapien--, but it occasionally occurs in specially trained individuals.

Next we need to explore the potential for improving human behavior through existing biological mechanisms or epigenetic modification. It raises interesting questions about the nature of human spirituality and the origins of religious thought. The discussion on epigenetics provides a scientific perspective on potential avenues for influencing human development

Technological Intervention

With recognition of the neurobiology and development of the human species , we gain insight into the "under the hood" processes that determine behavior - the ingrained programs, genes, and epigenetic influences that produce most of our actions and behavior - we recognize the extreme complexity of the process.

Most biologic processes in the neurologic and epigenetic are a chain of multivariable events, some random, some preprogrammed, and have many complex pathways. There is such a lack of understanding of choosing the exact logical points of modification, that unintended consequences may occur, by altering a very unpredictable chain of events with multiple side effects. There is danger that any uninformed tampering with it would be fraught with unpredicted problems. It may be logical that the safest point of intervention would be at the most elementary, simple stage, at the beginning, would be least likely to produce unwanted variables of the process. The middle of the chain would be dangerously unpredictable. It may be logical that modifications in the final product without interfering with the biological chain of events at all may also be safer.

In other words, take human beings as they are, and improve them with a modifying process without danger of unwanted side effects.

Epigenetic Modification (referred to in the epigenetic section)

The most logical way available to us that could uniformly improve all Homo sapiens is to affect their epigenetic controls from ages 1 to 10. The Jesuits have been known for saying, "Give me a child until he's eight, and then you can have him." Perhaps they knew something.

Epigenetic influence can be definitely adjusted by environmental effects, human interaction, nutritional and health exposures during this period. Unfortunately, some epigenetic effects are inherited, and previous generations may have some left over. If positive, these could be amplified; if negative, they could be suppressed. Epigenetic modification of specific traits is now being accomplished.

Enhance Spiritual Awareness.

At this point, one of the greatest questions for mankind is: do the biological forces that exist in the creation of our species already have an element of neurological attributes that can be amplified to assure better behavior and survival?That is, are there elements that can amplify positive "family" emotions and awareness in our species that can overcome the negative effects of our competitive aspects?

Common concepts are love, empathy, social unity, etc., alongside our other past aggressive tendencies. We could use a common but easily overused term – spiritual awareness.Is this element already within us, or do we have to start from scratch and cultivate it in our biological framework?Is Evolution Still Going On, Possibly in Our Brains, Our Intellect, or Spirituality?

THOUGHTS ON RELIGIONS Let’s examine an interesting perspective on how geographic environments might have influenced the development of different religious concepts. It also raises thought-provoking questions about the impact of these belief systems on human behavior and survival. The critique of how religion can become politicized adds depth to the discussion.

Primitive Homo sapiens were not stupid , and were capable of conceptualizing what they had to do to survive among each other. Rules and, within certain limits, a "leader person" was needed for their group. Another Homo sapiens whom they chose. But they also needed a "conceptual leader" that could explain how everything around them worked and why everything was there. And who control the natural aspects of things. But it could not be another Homo sapiens – it had to be more invisible, omniscient and eternal (I guess occasionally, in some situations, Shamans or Oracles might serve as mediator)..

Geographic Effect

Homo sapiens whose culture evolved in very sparse environments, such as deserts and barren areas, had little to look at but sky, and, sometimes, endless rather barren space – deserts. So there was a tendency for people to generate the idea of a single, simpler force in nature, logically originating from above, that controlled all things.

Thus "a God" mainly in space (monotheistic) was the choice. That "God" was causing things to happen that their local Homo sapiens leaders weren’t making happen. So, being very self-centered, Homo sapiens then developed an anthropomorphic concept, and created a singular PERSONA. God looked like them, thought like them - after all, they seemed, logically to themselves, to be the most important things around.

The other alternative was, the Homo sapiens culture evolved in areas that had a lot of surrounding and imposing environmental structures - abundant flora and fauna, impressive vegetation, rivers and streams, large impressive natural monuments such as mountains – and were probably exposed to more variable types of Homo sapiens. This would encompass a more diverse "PERSONA". They then logically would assign "controlling entity" powers to specific and multiple things – different personalities, different animals, and a variety of specific objects of nature. (Polytheism). Has either type made much difference in the ethical behavior and collaborative efforts necessary for joint survival? With the current existential tools available to us , Homo sapiens seems to still be on the way to species extinction.

RELIGIOUS POLITIZATION

"Under our hoods" (manifest as basic human nature) when religion is elevated to the large group status “ organizes religion”, it invariably becomes politicized and falls to the behavior of bureaucracies and oligarchies. Just like other non religious groups also have organized under a different system and are compelled to compete, usually with violence, to gain control of or destroy the competing group. This seems to be so with the monotheistic religions – Abrahamic ones – from the desert. Perhaps the only way to evolve into a workable civilization is to change or "tap into" what may already be in the heads of humans. Hopefully, the capacity is already within us, and we just need to allow it to come to the surface.

Some very smart people, previously critical, have resorted to the restoration of Christian-type ethics as applied to the general population – Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins, when they recognize a need for humans to behave better on their own. This ability may be to some degree inherent in humans – before Christianity even started, a Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, concluded that we indeed have within ourselves senses of responsibility to other individuals. Some of these "Christian ethics" preceded the religion by many years – Romans were particularly devoted to Mithraism (a secret and poorly understood religion to this day). So, we actually may have within our nature the capability, and we urgently need to bring it to the forefront of our approach to our group interactions.

Thoughts about the potential for inherent ethical capabilities in humans, drawing on historical examples and contemporary thinkers. It then summarizes the challenges faced by Homo sapiens in scaling from small groups to large societies, highlighting the cognitive limitations that lead to abstraction and potential dehumanization in large groups.

SUMMARY

My final comments reflect a sobering analysis of the challenges facing humanity, from the psychological limitations of leaders in large groups to the dangers posed by modern technology and weapons. It ends on a note of cautious hope, suggesting that changing our innate behaviors (epigenetic- neurotransmitter modification- Spiritial awaknening) all options might be our best path forward. My thoughts are reflective and invites further discussion and reflection from the reader.

Homo Sapiens neurobiology contains programing to survive and control our environment and combat any threats to our perceived existence. It has been shown that Homo sapiens has done very well naturally with groups that presented no conflicts that did not exceed 250 individuals with one authority figure.

After exceeding that number, we were forced to come up with a common story to bind us together in an abstract way (Harari) which allowed us to exist in groups and minimize conflict, codes of conduct, rules, and ultimately overall religions this mindset of the “ overall story describing our purpose” in an abstract way in some cases allowed us to combine an authority figure (or figures) with an overall structure for our existence in larger groups.

Homo sapiens has had one cognitive problem in extremely large groups: the leaders (Homo sapiens authority figures) commonly, do not have the cognitive capacity to think of these groups as they would within a small group (as members of a family), but as abstractions, commonly leading to dehumanization and abuse

In this type of organization, individuals as people would cease to be important and cease to exist. At that point, they become thought of as "group identities" and not freethinking individuals. This also allowed the authority figures to abandon their interpersonal feelings with these groups. It also exaggerated their own sense of power and control. When multiple figures of this order appeared, they cannot respond as they would to an individual person but consider the other individuals in the situation a threat to survival.

The elemental hormones, neurotransmitters, and neural modulators will take over with the feedback that is noticed in the situation (dopamine, norepinephrine). This can also occur in figures who are not in an authoritative position because of perceived threats, rejection, and other situations that will seemingly threaten.

It is the release of neurotrophic substances, modulated by our prefrontal cortex (which relies on memory), which can affect through environmental and hereditary means, modification of our epigenetic activity (there are also very complicated pathways which are still being investigated in the transitional process from gene to protein) and activate or repress our emotional behavior.

Looking at the situation humanity is in today, it's not a whole lot different from what it has been in the past regarding human behavior.

But our tools have changed.

In the past, we embellished our conflicts with sticks and stones, bows and arrows and spears, guns and cannons, flying machines and devices. More recently, we have developed existentially damaging weapons such as nuclear devices. In that instance, we have so far restrained ourselves with their use. Now a new weapon seems to be informational systems including attacks and controls of digital networks which allow disruption of certain societal functions and dissemination of digital images and ideas which may have overwhelming influence on our digitally controlled information systems and trusted sources of information. "Fake news"

The behavior of authoritarian figures (commonly politically elected, powerful because of financial control, powerful because of information control, power from possessing devices that can produce violence and harm people) is leading us into an era of relative extinction.

At best, we will again enter into the cycle of the "oligarchy" if we physically survive. The other option is physical extinction from advanced weapons or subjugation by mind control aided with artificial intelligence.

Wow! Doesn't sound good to me. Maybe I've got it wrong; please correct me. Assuming there is some truth in this opinion, what tangible things can we do? It becomes clear that throughout history, different ways to organize society structures politically and economically have not worked. The only thing that will change and allow humanity to exist and continue - I think and believe - is that we can change our so-called "natural" behavior within us.

My final comments reflect a sobering analysis of the challenges facing humanity, from the psychological limitations of leaders in large groups to the dangers posed by modern technology and weapons. It ends on a note of cautious hope, suggesting that changing our innate behaviors might be our best path forward. My thoughts are reflective and invites further discussion and reflection from the reader.

Our Species' Life

Speaking of our journey in life,

We worry about our species' strife.

My own experience, a tale to tell,

Saw love's flow, challenges as well.

Some accomplishments occurred on my way,

Yet I long for more than just one day.

Our Creator, all knowing beyond our measure

Please give us more time than the butterflies treasure.

You gave us some tools and let life’s victory gain.

But some of those tools caused torture and pain.

Please imbue us with tools that let life to proceed.