What We Don't Know Is Thrilling

Last week was a big one for the human family tree -- it grew by a million years. With considerable splash the media announced that our oldest ancestor was Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, an upright walking hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago. A female skeleton was put on display that demotes Lucy, another female skeleton that became famous as the oldest hominid, dating from only 3.2 million years.

As usual when such stories about evolution reach the front page, religious believers are quieted. Unless you have absolute faith in Genesis, there is irrefutable evidence that physical life developed by stages. Ardi wasn't exactly a newcomer. The first remains, in the form of a single molar, had been found in Ethiopia in 1992, and for seventeen years teams of specialists determined a host of facts about this new species. For example, walking upright had already been developed four million years ago, along with tree-climbing, and an omnivorous appetite for almost any kind of food, plant or animal.

Indirectly creationists were handed a sliver of a concession. Ardi isn't apelike. We aren't descended from monkeys, once again laying to rest the most shocking theory that used to circulate in common parlance. By walking upright over four million years ago, the earliest hominids were already on an evolutionary track separate from even chimps and gorillas, our nearest genetic cousins, who locomote with a different kind of gait known as knuckle-walking.

Yet it's what we don't know about our ancestors that's the most thrilling. Nothing in the fossil record, no matter how many dozen specialists study it, explains the trait that makes us human. It's not walking upright or learning to mate for life (some anthropologists speculate that this was already developing with Ardi and Lucy). It's not the opposable thumb and forefinger, which have long been touted as the one great advantage we have over all other primates.

The dominant trait that makes us human is our self-consciousness, which will never be viewed in the fossil record, because it's invisible. Being self-conscious, human beings became curious about ourselves and where we came from. That's why we study chimps but they don't study us. Other primates have had the same millions of years to become self-conscious. Somehow it never caught on beyond a certain basic level, while we on the other hand grew more self-conscious over time. When the Buddha looked inward and Christ preached a gospel of love, those were evolutionary steps in human awareness.

Evolution has reached the point where there's no more physical development left for us. Escaping the rule of survival of the fittest -- that no longer applies to a species that takes care of its weak and sick -- human beings entered the era of survival of the wisest. Survival of the wisest means using our consciousness in the highest way possible, for peace, shared resources, the eradication of disease, and increased happiness.

In terms of self-consciousness, the next great leap won't be in any of these areas, however. It will come when we figure out how brain cells work. Neuroscientists, like their colleagues in anthropology, keep staring at what's visible when the secrets of the brain are clearly invisible. Where is memory imprinted in a neuron? What is the self, which appears to have no identifiable location in the brain? How do vibrating molecules striking the eardrum turn into words that convey meaning? When photons stimulate cells on the surface of the retina, how do mere electrical impulses in the visual cortex create the world we see?

Inside the brain there are no sounds or sights. When you hear music, your brain remains completely silent. When you gaze at a sunset, your brain remains totally dark. The study of cells and tissues, like the study of fossils, offers clues about the mystery of consciousness, yet a great divide has yet to be crossed. We need a Darwin of consciousness, a seminal mind who grasps the mind itself. Only then will Ardi and Lucy make sense. Because right now they don't. The creationists are defending a rear-guard position that will never be true. At the same time, so are the materialists they oppose. Consciousness is the creative force we have yet to unravel. It creates sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. Which means that the real thrills are yet to come, when we look inward to discover the most mind-bending thing of all: Consciousness is the basic building block of life and the prime mover of the universe.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

deepakchopra.com

 

 

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deepak_Chopra

Comments

[Inghram]

(second post)

Without going into the studies that have shown that chimps and other animals with a higher intelligence have a sense of self, I fail to see how the following two quotes can be reconciled:

"The dominant trait that makes us human is our self-consciousness, which will never be viewed in the fossil record, because it's invisible. Being self-conscious, human beings became curious about ourselves and where we came from. That's why we study chimps but they don't study us."

"Consciousness is the basic building block of life and the prime mover of the universe."

If humankind has reached it's peak in evolution, and if it is our self-consciousness that makes us uniquely human - then how could this consciousness have been the basic building block, prime move of all life and the universe which got us to this final peak you suggest.

Unless one jumps to a cornucopia of metaphysical answers, it seems quite the contradiction to me.

I appreciate the wonderful questions your ask, Dr. Chopra. I think we should never cease asking questions and researching that which we do not understand. But I urge caution to you and all the readers, that we learn from history not to rush to formulate vast conclusions and belief structures about that which we barely understand and know.

[Inghram]

(First Post)

"Evolution has reached the point where there's no more physical development left for us."

With all respect, Dr. Chopra, this statement is at best myopic and sheer arrogance at worst. To assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution rivals the same line of thinking that takes a literal view of Genesis; the view that God created man (and then woman from man) unique, special and above all other creation.

[SILVANUS]

Well, the behaviorists climbed out of the basement in the last few decades and copulated with venture capitalists to market modified, renamed Speed pills for emotional "disorders".

Materialists don't honor invisible intangibles. No eyes to see.

[LifeChangeStartsNow]

Wonderful piece again Deepak Chopra. And yes, I am also very excited about the future and what it holds for us and I intend to be around when the first glimmer of an answer appears to the question - What is the self.

[Balzac]

From the article: "Consciousness is the basic building block of life and the prime mover of the universe."

I agree. The problem with proving these things is that subjective phenomena of the mind are not objectively provable. The "science of consciousness" is only experienced directly and subjectively, not successfully measured, represented, or discussed. As such, it is a solitary practice, even though it can be scientific­ally-rigor­ous for an individual.

"When the Buddha held up the golden flower, it was this which Mahakasyapa understood: that there was nothing to transmit."

From the article: "We need a Darwin of consciousness, a seminal mind who grasps the mind itself."

I can't objectively prove this to anyone else, but I can say there is at least one among us who has accomplished this. I cannot convince anyone else since it is an internal phenomenon.

Mr. Chopra, I already know you've been "grasping the mind" for quite some time now. I also know there are many others, or else I wouldn't have read so much of their writing over the years. I can't objectively prove this anymore than I can prove my own "attainment".

What we need is to be able to fly like Milarepa so that people will know that we know.

[The Meek]

"human beings entered the era of survival of the wisest."

I prefer the Survival Of The Kindest theory meself. It is just a quibble though, because being kind requires a lot of wisdom. It makes sense that people whose behaviors aren't controlled by their more primitive brain functions have an evolutionary advantage.

[Kalyan]

Just wanted to add some related stuff...

According to Hindus' (Patanjali) theory on evolution, all beings whether sentient or insentient from the lowest atom to the highest human being are all rushing towards only one goal and that is perfection. All work done is negative work, which ultimately brings one sooner towards perfection. Also required to understand this is the understanding the concept of rebirth, the indestructability of conciousness and the origin of ego. Also Patanjali in his yoga aphorisms says that when a species' activity becomes extremely intense it morphs into a different species.

[jhamm1]

What strikes me about this entire phenomenon is the fact that no one has bothered to stop and consider the possibility that Ardi might be symptomatic of nothing more than a failed strain of the evolutionary chain.

Remember homo erectus, guys? Why is it any more far-fetched to consider that this Ardi merely represents a biological road which ultimately led to nowhere?

[bobdcat]

Wow - where to begin.

We're the only self-conscious species? Nope. Many have shown the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror. And chimps not studying us? You might want to check with Jane Goodall on that one. They just don't have a grant-writing procedure.

No more physical evolution left for us? Huh? So, we have reached physical perfection?

No more "survival of the fittest"? Malarkey! We are one virus or meteor strike away from extinction.

Areas of the brain have been mapped actively engaged in processing auditory and visual input. That's where the "hearing" and "seeing" occur. The sound and the sight exist only in the brain. Other species are conscious of their surroundings in the very same way. They just don't post to Huffington about it.

Humans did hit on one unique talent, though, the external storage of memory. By, drawing representations on walls, then substituting symbols for the drawings, it became possible to transmit experience even after the one who had the experience had already died. Unfortunately, we also used it to transmit legend, prejudice, ignorance, superstition, delusions and falsehoods - and we're still doing it.

The existence of religious writings is no proof of the existence of any deity. The human-posited self-definition of human consciousness is no proof of its being different in kind from consciousness of any other species.

This article is wrong on so many levels.

[Inghram]

Nicely stated.

[WernerJohn]

Yes! Yes! Yes! Heaven is real and Earth is real, and in intimate dance they form the "ten thousand things" of Taoism. It is ultimate simplicity, and ultimate mystery. This article was a breath of fresh air to me immersed in our jagged culture.

The ability of humans to put on blinders toward whole swaths of reality is astonishing. Maybe creative denial is the flip side of our species' adaptability and intelligence: creating massive edifices of thought to support whatever cramped and limited ideas one has decided ahead of time must be true. It may just be the most dangerous thing on the planet.

Some believe in a God spirit to the exclusion of all those bones in all the museums of the world. Others believe that whatever can't be measured doesn't exist, never having thought to take the measure of the believer's own self.

We so need an update to our cultural software... and this article points in a promising direction.

[johnsopinion]

I agree with the title of your piece:

"What We Don't Know Is Thrilling"

and enjoyed reading your thoughts.

I disagree with some-some-of your assumptions. But that's
okay because that too is thrilling.

I find it difficult to wait but I think we are on the precipice of
one of the biggest discoveries of mankind--that of finding
a hominid that lived along side of the dinosaurs! In earth
time, it wasn't that long ago.

And, I love your questions about the eyes and ears, etc.
My way of thinking also! I think this is one of the most
thrilling times to be alive and walking this planet!

Thank you for a good, well worded, op-ed piece.

[seawolf77]

I am sure every scientest out there knows that humans were created from genetic manipulation of the primates that existed here on earth. Given that , who accomplished such a thing. And why have we been fed the line of religious hooey instead of the truth. I'll tell you why. The same way every engineer out there knows 9/11 is a hoax. But they all go along with the official story cause that's what a good engineer does.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Oh please....9/11 conspiracy theories again. I suggest you examine your own consciousness.

[AbrahamSadegh]

If we look at role science as reducing our ignorance -- and there is nothing more rewarding than reducing our ignorance -- rather than a means of glorifying ourselves more than we deserve, then the concept of creation might not be so outrageous for those who believe we know all there is to know how this Universe we are a conscious part of came to be:

The Earth was globe long before Copernicus and Galileo;

Newton discovered the laws of motion and did not create them;

One of the eternal laws of the Universe has been the process of evolving from a simple stage to a more complex one long before Darwin and Wallace's theory of Natural Selection;

E = MC2 has been around billions of years before Einstein,

And the expansion of the Universe did not start with Hubble.

We should embrace the fact that "What We Don't Know Is Thrilling" and not reject the thrilling possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence until science proves otherwise without a shadow of doubt.

Lest we forget, we are still way short of comprehending all that goes on in a single atom.

Finally, it is "mind bending" to realize that our "Consciousness is the basic building block of life and the prime mover of the universe."

[philko]

"There is nothing more rewarding than reducing our ignorance"

My vote for Inspiring Quote Of the Year!! Fanned and faved for that alone.

[philko]

Although the general gist of Deepak's article is true, he makes a couple of significant misstatements:

"our oldest ancestor was Ardi" -- Not necessarily true. While Ardi is now the oldest complete example of an early hominid, there's no proof (yet) that she was our direct ancestor. It's entirely possible that Ardi was part of an evolutionary dead-end.

"hominids were already on an evolutionary track separate from chimps and gorillas" -- Again, not necessarily true. It's actually more likely that the split between upright-walking hominids and the apes happened *after* Ardi and not before.

"primates had millions of years to become self-conscious [but] never caught on" -- Recent studies on primates indicate a greater level of self consciousness than we'd thought. It looks like consciousness, like everything else in nature may turn out to be a continuum and not a trait where an animal either has or or now. Humans will undoubtedly remain the *most* self conscious animals, but maybe the gap between us and whoever's in second place isn't as great as we've assumed.

"Evolution has reached the point where there's no more physical development left for us." -- COMPLETELY WRONG! The process of evolution may no longer be as cruel as it used to be, but there's still room for the random tweaking of genes to result in certain humans having more or fewer offspring. Some possible evolutionary changes that could still be possible: lengthening of female childbearing years, increased incidence of multiple births (twins, triplets), etc.

[robert234]

If you really seek an answer to consciousness and our continuing evolution read Robert Lanza's book, BIOCENTRISM. That's the facts sir and nothing but the facts.