In an academic style, the hypothesis was published in a peer-reviewed publication from the VAK list "Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University", Philosophical Sciences, issue 56, No. 5 (439), 2020, pp. 82-88: "The missing element of Popper's evolutionary epistemology scheme "
Prolegomena
- Subject: the phenomenon of death awareness.
- Hypothesis: “awareness of death” as a problem is a unique property of a “person” obtained using a specific language. Only the awareness of death gave man the opportunity to "relate to death."
- The attitude towards death forms universal ways of overcoming problems: " morality as experience " and " ethics as a method ".
- Living nature “does not know” about death, so it develops not by method, but by selection.
- «» , « » .
- «» «» «» , «-».
- «» - : «, », «» Homo Sapiens. , . , , , , . . , « » .
- : « » « ». , , , , , . , «», « ». .
Considering "Nicomachean Ethics", I will note the obvious and, in my opinion, erroneous approach of Aristotle, and after him all subsequent philosophers to the issue of "good and evil." Aristotle looks at the “good” as a separate subject: “ ... as is commonly believed, [everyone] strives for a certain good. Therefore, the good was successfully defined as something to which everything aspires. "
This position reduces all ethical reasoning to consistently conflicting results. Speaking exclusively about “good”, we mean a simplification: as if “evil” is something opposite to “good”. Some kind of "good with a minus sign." But this is not so: evil is not equal to "good with a minus sign", just as "evil with a minus sign" is not equal to good:
Z ≠- (D) or D ≠- (Z)
It is not correct to think about "good" even for a second, separating it from "evil", giving them both the properties of some independent entities. We must not forget that "good and evil", "good and harm", "virtue and vice" are a dichotomy. This means that the merging of subclasses is inseparable without losing the meaning of the entity. And at that moment, when we replace the sought-for essence with one of its subclasses, endowing it with an essential or objective character, we take ourselves away from the true subject of research. If we do not have the true essence, then we can talk about anything, but not about it. And philosophers, following Aristotle, persistently repeat this mistake, although the dichotomy of moral categories is known to everyone.
Figure: 1. Graphic dichotomy: the trick is that only the black subclass is drawn here, and the white one, without being drawn at all, manifests itself.
Not being entities, “good” separately and “evil” separately cannot be either ends or means. Rather, they are parameters, or pointers, that allow us to arrive at the desired entity. Thus, the substrate of morality is that to which the attitude is expressed with the help of the concepts of "good and evil." It remains to find out what is so fundamental we can show our attitude?
I will illustrate thought with an example. Pilots have instruments that are sufficient to fly based solely on readings. Devices are better than human instincts because in humans, flight instincts were not formed at all, because he himself did not fly. But when the pilot "flies on the instruments", he does not for a second forget that his ultimate goal is not the readings of the instruments themselves, but what they tell him about the real world. The pilot's goal is a physical take-off or landing, not a take-off and landing instrument readout. If the device shows a situation that does not correspond to reality, then the pilot will prefer to be guided by reality, and not by the readings of the device. The device may be faulty or inaccurate, or incorrectly configured. And the management of such a device will lead to death.Likewise, we cannot set the goal of achieving "good" or "evil" by ourselves, since in itself, "good" or "evil" is not an object, but only a parameter of some object. These are "grading categories", that is, the "way of evaluating" the subject. So, actually striving for them is stupid. The digit at the altimeter is a mathematical abstraction. By itself, without connection with reality, it is not interesting. To make parameters important, we associate "good" and "evil" with something that might be a subject that is important enough to us. The number on the altimeter indicates with some accuracy the position of the aircraft above the ground. In this simulated situation, the number becomes “bad” only when it indicates a position that means the possibility of the death of the aircraft, and “good” if the flight can continue to continue safely. A pilot using this attitude to numbers: knowingwhich of them are "good" and which are "bad", takes efforts towards the indicators of "good" on the devices, and avoiding approaching the indicators of "evil", achieving by their actions not "good" as a separate entity, and avoids not "evil" as a separate entity. It can also be mentioned that the same numbers on the scales can mean "evil" for the aircraft in one situation, and "good" in another. And there is no contradiction in this, since the situation is clear to us.since the situation is clear to us.since the situation is clear to us.
Figure: 2. This means that the range from 10 to 20 (some indicators) is safe for flight, and less or more means the death of the aircraft.
It is important to note that “avoidance of death” and “survival” are not identical. The pilot's actions described by us are not aimed at "survival", because until he died, he is alive. Imagine that if an inexperienced pilot sits in the cockpit, unable to recognize the fatal spin into which his plane fell, then he sits calmly: after all, he is alive. And not knowing how death is approaching him, he is not even able to begin to fight the problem. Only knowing about the problem: that the plane has fallen into a tailspin and a disaster is approaching, the pilot will begin to fight the problem. First of all, because he understands what death means for his life, and that death is approaching.
Let's fix the situation: an inexperienced pilot also wants to live, to be happy and to experience pleasure, but these desires by themselves do not motivate him in any way if he does not know about the problem. Only knowledge of the problem motivates the pilot.
So, we clearly see: the pilot evaluates the categories of "good and evil" precisely "understanding the problem", and not "life", "happiness" or "pleasure". Anything that usually appears in reasoning that begins with an understanding of a particular "good" does not really matter.
. 3. , «» , .. , . , - , , , , . « » «».
In general, if we want to evaluate the flight as a whole, then we are evaluating precisely the ability to "avoid death" in the entire flight process, and not only the result of "survival". Only a flight that did not have accidents and did not suffer a crash will be unambiguously "good" for the pilot. If there was an accident during the flight, even if it did not lead to a catastrophe, damage and death: even if the pilot “survived” and was not injured, we will not call this flight “good” either, although the result with a “good” flight was the same for the pilot ... The fact is that we knew about the risk of death in an accident flight, which was significantly higher than in a "good" flight without an accident. So we see that ethics is evaluating the success of the process of "overcoming death", not the resulting "survival".
. 4. «» «» « » . , « » «», « », «» .
We can also reveal the essential linkage of "good and evil" completely abstractly: for example, as in the case of a game, when one person is looking for an object in the room, and another tells him: "cold" - "warmer" - "colder" - "hot", - and we understand that we only conditionally color the proximity to the target with a certain physical connotation, when the seeker approaches the hidden object, and “warmer” or “colder” denotes approaching or moving away from the target, but not the physical temperature of the target. The sought-after object does not exude heat, but is endowed with such a property for the convenience of communication. Therefore, the words “warm” / “cold” can be replaced without losing the meaning of the described game by “positive” / “negative”, or “good” / “bad”, and, finally, “good” / “evil”. Essentially, nothing will change. Therefore, "good" and "evil" in themselves are not good and not bad,they only allow a person to search for a single essence. And this essence, as a result of the game, will not appear to us in the form of "good" or "evil", embodied "negative" / "positive", "warmth" / "cold", as you might have guessed.
Let's note an interesting point: the result of the game nullifies "good and evil". After finding the item, these categories no longer interest us.
So, trying to “materialize” or naturalize “good”, Aristotle brings us to the concept of “the good of the state”, which can be interpreted as “the good of society for the good of man,” as the goal of any activity. But if, as we found out earlier, "good" in itself does not mean anything, but it is only a parameter, or a guideline in the process of achieving some goal, then Aristotle, making a stitching of "good" and the goal, gives in his presentation of ethics a false target. In fact, he himself understands this: “ … a kind of vagueness is contained in [the expression] of“ good ”, because many of [good] can cause harm. "
Now let's turn to that part of "Ethics" in which Aristotle nevertheless touches the subject we are looking for, which, on the one hand, does not allow him to achieve harmony in his ethical constructions, on the other, this subject itself could serve as a solid core for any ethical quest , if it were taken as a starting point: “ And the worst thing is death, for this is the limit, and it seems that beyond it for the deceased nothing is either good or bad. "- indeed, but" death "is exactly what only" man "has understood so far:" ... and what we are looking for is inherent only in man ... "And it is death, already according to Aristotle, that nullifies" good and evil. " If we speak of "good and evil" as an attitude towards death, then is not the whole specificity of "man" contained here? In his attitude to death.
The way a person treats life and death, and how nature treats it, is fundamentally different. Nature has no categories of "relation" at all: there are no "good and evil" in nature. But a person has these categories, they give him a unique specifics. Therefore, if you understand the reason for the existence of these categories for a “person”, it means that you will be able to define the very phenomenon “person”.
Further, Aristotle plunges into cyclical discussions of the “golden mean”, repeating the same thing over and over again: “ ... bearing in mind that excess and lack are fatal to perfection, and possession of the middle is beneficial ..."If you think about what is said here, then it is possible that the main thing is not that it is" excess "or just" lack ", but still" disastrous "or" beneficial. " It can be seen that when Aristotle judges "good" or "evil", then the thought comes down to whether the subject (person, society or state) dies or continues to live. This question constantly appears in any reasoning, as if this is the only thing under discussion, implying the same thing in different formulations:
“... for bodily strength, both excessive gymnastics and insufficient ones are fatal, just as drinking and eating in excess or inadequate destroys health, while all this in moderation (ta symmetra) creates it, and increases it, and preserves it ...; ... So, excess (hyperbole) and lack (eleipsis) are fatal to prudence and courage, and the possession of the middle (mesotes) is beneficial ...; ... bearing in mind that excess and lack are fatal to perfection, and the possession of the middle is beneficial ...; ... if you do this an act, then they will be saved, and if they do not commit, they will perish ... "And so over and over again, practically about the same thing:" to be or not to be, that is the question. " So isn't that really the question? Yes, in this.
So, let's repeat: “And the worst thing is death, for this is the limit, and it seems that beyond it, for the deceased, nothing is either good or bad. "It is" death ", or rather" attitude to death ", that is the source of" good and evil. " It turns out that Aristotle, discussing anything and from any angle, over and over again comes to the problem of "death" or "doom". It is precisely “death” in Aristotle's reasoning that gives rise to unexpected, sometimes paradoxical transformations of “happiness” and “good” into “unhappiness” and “evil” so that Aristotle can nowhere grasp the situation of absolute “good”. Only "death" is absolute and unambiguous, existential in Aristotle. And she has an interesting ability to nullify "good and evil" as in a game of finding an object. So what kind of item should we find? What would be the result of the ethical exercise of the "man"?
My answer is "overcoming the problem." Let us consider “overcoming” from different angles, what the “overcoming death” of a “person” can be like in life: tactically and strategically.
Aristotle says interestingly about the specifics of natural reactions: " ... nature, obviously, first of all avoids what gives suffering, strives for what gives pleasure ... " - this is how it is said about the biological dichotomy, which directs the actions of animals in the form of instincts that they do not recognize and behavioral programs. In the absence of intelligence, "pain and pleasure" is what directs the actions of animals. Therefore, it is correct to say, and Aristotle says this: that nature does not “overcome the problem”, but namely “avoids the problem”.
"Pain" is negative and "pleasure" is positive. But neither pain nor pleasure is a task. Therefore, of course, this is not in any way a method for solving problems. So Aristotle found a natural analogue of morality, and this is absolutely certain. If "man" has a moral dichotomy of "good and evil," then nature has a biological dichotomy of "pleasure and pain." The specificity and effectiveness of “man” is that the dichotomy of morality, in contrast to the dichotomy of selection, “sees” the result of the obstacles and problems of life: this is death. Selection “does not see” obstacles, but uses them in order to select only those options that “go around” the obstacle without touching it. A parallel can be drawn with the “survivor bias” effect, where only “correct answers” ​​are retained. It turns out that the experience of touching the frame in nature does not physically exist:he dies. For this reason, living nature does not and cannot have "knowledge" about death, therefore there is no relation to it.
We can easily find examples of the difference in approaches: a “person” can endure the real pain of treatment precisely because he knows about the death that disease brings. The ethical method of attitude towards death allows a person to neglect the negative of "pain", preferring the category of "good", although it is not pleasant physically, does not cause "happiness" and "pleasure", but it leads to overcoming death. Just as a person can directly refuse a number of "pleasures", ethically labeling their harmful consequences as "evil" if they lead to death: drugs, excesses, imbalances. The animal will not tolerate pain, since this is one of the levers of instinct, and by all means will avoid treatment if he has the opportunity. And all this is only due to the fact that the animal does not know either about the disease in particular, or about death in general. Same,how the animal will enjoy as much as possible - even if it is just an electrode sewn into a specific area of ​​the brain, and not real pleasure [Olds, 1954]. Such examples can be cited as tactical coping with the problem of death.
“ But the mercenaries become cowards whenever the danger is too great and they are outnumbered by the enemy in numbers and equipment, because they are the first to flee, while the civilian [militia], remaining [in the ranks], perishes, as happened near the temple of Hermes. For for some, flight is shameful, and they prefer death to such salvation, while others from the very beginning put themselves in danger, provided that the advantage was on their side, and realizing [that this is not], they turn to flight, fearing death more than shame ...”- here the moment is discussed when individuals give their lives for the sake of their society. In this case, it is understandable for what reason the mercenaries flee: they are not connected with the protected society, and for them their own death is worse than the death of some foreign society (state). And the civilian militia is connected with the protected society: their material and spiritual values, their children, parents and relatives are stored there, that is, everything that is part of themselves, and will exist much longer than them. Thus, the phenomenon of History and Culture can be cited as an attempt at strategic (but not personal) overcoming death.
One of the types of culture is Ritual and Religion, which gives us another example of trying to strategically, personally, but imagined overcoming the problem of death in the form of postulating "life after death".
In Heidegger's Being and Time, on page 247: “ In the same way, the concepts of death among primitives, their attitude to death in divination and cult, first of all highlight their understanding of presence, whose interpretation already requires existential analytics and the corresponding concept of death . “This is how Heidegger confirms the thesis that every ritual and every cult, even the earliest and most primitive, necessarily begins with the idea of ​​death. Precisely because it is impossible to solve an undefined problem.
The elementary showering of the deceased with flowers already tells us that this action is solving some problem, in the direction of some goal. And this is not just the awareness of a certain situational death as a current event, but namely the awareness of death as a universal inevitability for life: " ... interpretation requires already existential analytics and a corresponding concept ... ". Consciousness of death as a tragic phenomenon, impending for all life. In this case, the ritual: it is an attempt to "solve [this] problem." At least conditionally.
"No, it is not necessary [to follow] the admonitions "for man to understand (phronein) what is human" and "to mortal - mortal"; on the contrary, as far as possible, one must rise to immortality (athanatidzein) and do everything for the sake of life (pros to dzen), corresponding to the highest in oneself, right, if in terms of volume this is a small part, then in strength and value it far surpasses everything. "- this thought of Aristotle falls into the context of the hypothesis: we are talking about overcoming" death as a problem. "
We understand that only “understanding the problem” can be the beginning of solving the problem. If this is so, then all the private "benefits" listed in the treatise "Ethics", as well as all not listed, gradually, practically and historically, synergizing with each other in the development process, ultimately come down to solving the most general task of overcoming the most common problem : of death. This is partly revealed to us in reality: today in developed countries the average life expectancy is at least twice the biological norms [ Mayne, 2019 ] and the anthropological framework, and this is already a lot.
Output:everything that “man” in all his diversity (individuality, society and humanity) does to overcome death is “good”, “good” and “virtue”. And everything that leads an individual person, society and Mankind as a whole to destruction or decay is "evil", "harm" and "vice".
At first glance, this essence of ethics is even too simple. Too obvious to be more than what we already see around us. But in fact, the opposite is true: yes, the principle is simple, but the whole tangle of interconnections, and the whole abyss of problems of the physical world around us, the social world is still not at all obvious, and the manifestations of “good” and “disastrousness" must be constantly identified by an ethical method.
The more interconnections and “problems” we identify in the process of Cognition in nature and in society, the more difficult it is for us to establish unequivocally which “action” and in what relation with other “actions” will lead Humanity to the prosperity of life, and which ultimately, as a result of multiple interactions, will destroy him. And nevertheless, the advantages of this principle are also obvious: we have the most constructive system for assessing and predicting the path along which Mankind is going.
Source of Development
This part refers rather to the problems of bioethics, if one has to decide: what is ethically acceptable in relation to what we call "human" and what is not, even if biotechnology allows.
There are no "problems" for inanimate nature. There is only the transformation of matter and energy. Loss of the planet's atmosphere, star burnout, supernova explosion, black holes, collisions of galaxies: these are not problems for the Universe.
The "problem" can only exist for "life." And this problem: the cessation of life, that is, death.
Let's define the connection of the concepts used below: “death”, “problem”, “obstacle”, “frame”. The concept of "problem" is reduced to the concept of "obstacles". An obstacle to life can only be that which prevents life from continuing. Anything that is not a "problem", that is, does not lead to the cessation of "life", is also not an "obstacle". Anything that does not stop life can be resources, opportunities, environment - anything, but not “obstacles”. Obstacles can be complex: a chain of interrelated events, complexes of conditions and their relationships, environmental parameters, natural phenomena. In the general case, we will call the complex of "obstacles" a "frame": the boundary of life's possibilities. Tactical and technical characteristics (TTX) of an organism, group, species, genus, and all living nature, if you like.
Collision with the "frame" means death. Wildlife exists avoiding contact with the "frame". Therefore, all available living organisms “do not know” about their “frame” and do not see it, since they have never come into contact with it. How is it possible, without seeing the obstacle, and even not knowing about it, nevertheless never bump into it? Animals are protected from this by instincts and behavioral programs through the dichotomy of "pain and pleasure." The parameters of "pain and pleasure" were selected by "death" during the entire lifetime of life. This is what we called this process: "natural selection". Death destroyed everyone who walked the “wrong path”, touching the “frame”. Only those who were left to live were those who walked exclusively on the "right path", following the instructions of their instincts, developed over billions of years. This is how nature continues to live without touching the "frame".
Figure: 5 Box
How then is the process of evolution of species and development of living nature going? Objectively, since its inception, wildlife gradually expands the "frame" of its capabilities, adapting to the environment, using the environment, shaping the environment, and adapting again. It does this through "rule breaking," which manifests itself in the form of errors: random mutations that give unexpected adaptations when animals change slightly physically or behaviorally. At the same time, selection again does its job: if a new change suits the new parameters of the environment, then it expands the existing "frame", forming a new species.
It is important that even after expanding their capabilities, animals again do not see any "frame" , thereforethe quality of existence does not change for them . Thus, enumeration of options in the form of random errors does not solve any problem, therefore, it does not solve the "problem" either. Nature only learns to avoid the "problem" in one way or another, adapting itself to this or that "frame". If the species does not withstand the parameters of the "frame", which itself can change in the form of natural disasters, then the species or species die out. This happened several times: 5 large and 20 small planetary cataclysms are known, when up to 95% of the existing species died out. The downside of this "development" is the extreme duration and cost of evolution, since even a purposeful enumeration of options as a "solution to the problem" would be an order of magnitude faster and more efficient than a random set of accidentally made mistakes.
The “man”, “having understood the problem”, “having understood death”, having seen the “obstacle”, having seen the “frame”, is the only one in all nature that has the ability to “expand” his frame without transforming himself into a new species with new performance characteristics. It is for this reason that the “man” was able to abandon his instincts: he does not stumble upon a frame because he sees it. A person is able to take action to move the "frame".
Thus, “understanding the problem” is the source of Development for “a person”. Only by seeing the limitations, the "person" can begin to think and act in the direction of overcoming them. An animal, not seeing its limitations, cannot overcome them.
What is “human action”: he thinks with his head, acts with his hands, chops with a piece of stone, draws in the sand, snatches fire from a forest fire, draws with coal on the wall, warms with a hearth, pushes with a stick, scratches with a flake, stabs with a bronze knife, harnesses a horse, pulls sails, propels a steam engine and a diesel engine, launches Sputnik and a nuclear reactor. This means that "action" is not only labor, the use of energy and technology, but also heroism, and creativity, and art.
“Overcoming the problem” requires Development, but does not require selection: “man” does not have to change as a species in order to push the border of his natural “frame”. Gagarin flew and returned from space the same Homo Sapiensas it was before. It did not take a man millions of years to twist the death carousel of evolutionary selection to get into an environment previously inaccessible to Homo Sapiens .
Sometimes the “person” sees the frame, but he cannot do anything: in the whole history there has not been anyone who did not die of old age, even if all other obstacles were pushed aside. Then the “man” comes up with a “made-up solution”: this is how the burial ritual appears. The metaphysics of faith and religion are developing: they solve the problem of “overcoming death” radically, but in an imaginary world. And it worked before.
This is how we find on the anthropological curve of the development of "man" the point when "man understood death": this is the beginning of ritual burials. It becomes quite understandable why, approximately in the same period, the complexity of processing the tools used by the "man" sharply increases. Knowing about the "all-pervading problem of death," a "man" uses a tool not only "for the function" as such (which is sometimes found in animals), but can judge whether the function is "badly" or "well" performed. The same ethical method. Not only: “did the chopper crack the nut,” or “did the wand reach the ants,” but: “how far did hunger and death move this weapon away from the“ man ”? Can you push them even further? This is the power of the "ethical method", which we defined at the very beginning as the Source of Development.
In other words, only understanding the “existence of death”, we can clearly see its manifestations in particular: the sharper and more comfortable the stone - the stronger the blow, the stronger the blow, the more nutrition, the more nutrition, the more energy the body has, and the more the energy of the body, the further from death I, and my tribe, and our kind. Then it makes sense to cut a better stone. If there is a skin “just to keep warm”, then we take the skin, whatever it is, and warm ourselves. But as soon as the “ethical method” appears: is the skin “good” to keep me warm and alive for a longer time, or “bad” so much that it lets me cold and death too quickly.
Only in this way does the meaning, the task and the goal of improving the dressing of the hide appear: and in order to cut off the hide more, you need a sharper and thinner knife (and it starts to improve), in order to make the skin thinner, you need to figure out how (creativity), in order to sew better, you need to find a stronger thread (research and comparison) and so on. Tomasello noted that " ... it is impossible to imagine human ... activity ... without ... setting common goals and objectives ... " (p. 279-280). [Tomasello, 2011] Where will goals and objectives come from if not from understanding the problem?
"Understanding the problem" or "understanding death", or the ability to "see the frame" cause continuous Cognition and Development. By the way, this is about the question "why should you go to school?" Yes, in order to find new and new limits that must be overcome, in order to eventually overcome death. As strange as it may sound. Ideally, one or another form of continuous development of a “person” should not be stopped at all until we are able to move into a new quality.
After all, when or if the “problem” is not clear to the consciousness of the “person”, then it does not exist for him, even when it already has its destructive effect. For example, until the “developed countries” learned about the specifics of the COVID-19 virus, it was not customary to wash hands that were not covered with obvious dirt: these are the costs of a high standard of living. But the abnormally high mortality rate made one realize a chain of problems: "there is an invisible" dirt "of the COVID-19 virus, which causes a disease that leads to death" gives rise to a "task": "to get rid of the" invisible dirt "of the virus"; The "task" finds a solution in the form of a "goal": "to find a way to get rid of the" invisible dirt "of the virus"; and only the "goal" prompts to "action": "to investigate the methods of deliverance, to find the means of deliverance (alcohol)"; and already the embodiment of the "action": "take alcohol, wash your hands" overcomes the "problem":"There is no virus on hand." And now the "problem-disease", and, in essence, "death", tactically retreats. So the “ethical method” requires constant Development and Knowledge.
Figure: 6. The movement from the “problem” to “solving the problem” cannot escape the point “understanding the problem”, because only this point sets a task, the solution of which becomes a goal that motivates the activity, and only as a result of such a sequence the problem is solved.
In the opposite direction, the scheme obviously does not work: "action" is impossible without a "goal", and "goal" without a "task". Energy will not be allocated to actions without an indication of instinct: this is laziness. The only thing that can replace the urge of instinct is motivation. But this is already a reasonable process of motivation to action. Therefore, animals generally do not demonstrate purposeful activity, since they do not have goals.
Achievement of the “goal”, “activity” are parts of the process of “solving” some “task”. This means that outside the "task" there can be no "goal" or "activity" to achieve it. And where does the "task" come from? The “challenge” is finding a way to overcome a perceived “problem”. It is impossible to solve a problem if there is no "problem". Neither in science nor in life there are "problems without problems." Even if you see a situation in which someone is given a clearly useless activity in the form of an assignment: to dig a ditch before lunch, and to bury it in the afternoon, all the same, this activity has both a “goal” (to prevent boredom) and a “task "(Come up with an activity). It's just that the "problem" in such a situation will not be obvious, but it cannot exist at all. So, the most important thing: you cannot “solve the problem” without “understanding the problem”. It seems obvious, but it must be realized.
Any purposeful action of a "person": this is evidence of the solution of some "problem" that he once understood. There is no other way to reveal the driving force of the human potential of Development. Whatever the “external justification” of the activity, along the chain of reasoning it comes to the problem of overcoming death. Only “cognition of problems” gives rise to their overcoming, that is, Development. Without understanding the problems, a person has nothing to overcome, and there can be no activity: neither physical, nor spiritual, nor creative.
Fruit of the tree of knowledge
If we accept that “a person develops only by understanding the problem,” then it is necessary to determine how he could understand it. We come to the question of language.
I would like to base it on the book by Derek Bickerton "How people created language, how language created people." On the whole, I agree with Bickerton's hypothesis, but I would like to refine his hypothesis by introducing an index mark of natural origin as a means of recruiting: "footprints in the savannah", or a book of footprints on the savannah, which the proto-man learned to read. In addition, Bickerton examines language and its transferability property, but does not explicitly say that the transferability property generates the language's tenses system. I also propose to finish the thought, as it were unfinished by Bickerton: how exactly language leads to the fundamental qualitative transition of an animal into a “human”.
P. 22 So, in order to turn into a language, meaningful units of description - words and signs - must be separated from specific situations and tied to conceptual ideas ... regarding certain objects ... separated from what is happening right now.
Here in this place I offer "footprints" - as index marks of natural origin. A person did not have to specially invent them, but only to see and understand that these were “signs left by animals,” when these signs themselves were attached to the animals that left them as meanings, and later as conceptual ideas. Thus, the savannah is the first “book” “read” by a human ancestor.
Figure: 7. Quote: "There was an elephant"
p. 23 The idea is that the first words would not bring immediate and tangible benefits ...
If we refer to the “footprints” as the first “protologues”, then they would bring immediate and tangible benefits. Knowing that "this trail was left by the victim" - we follow the trail and eat, increasing fitness. Knowing that a predator has left a trail, we prepare for resistance - we increase fitness. Further, processing the vocabulary of traces and the circumstances under which these traces appear, and the relativity of the time when these traces appeared: whether they are fresh or old, the protomen increasingly increased their adaptability. All this gave a direct benefit, later becoming iconic symbols from indexes, when the proto-man himself tried to graphically depict a trace for transmitting information to other relatives.
Researchers have found that a graphic image is an object available for execution by a creature that has a hand in general and about 400 grams of brain. Physically, this is the level of Australopithecus or Chimpanzee. In the experiment of Susan Savage-Rumbo, the bonobo Panbanisha was able to draw graphic lexigrams on a wooden floor on its own initiative [ Savage-Rumbo, 2004 ]. This means that the protomen could also depict the footprint, turning it from an index into an iconic sign. And having an iconic sign, emotionally connected with the cry of the SKZH (animal communication systems), we already have a protoword. Therefore, there is no need to separate the origin of words from the fitness that Bickerton posits.
P. 136 ... to expand the territory due to the fact that seekers will learn to read signs - piles of manure or preserved prints ...
Well, there it is! "Reading the signs" is a direct hit to the source of the language. The person did not invent signs, he “read” them, and then he himself began to draw and use due to the specifics of his development (brain and hands) plus a niche that constantly gave a lot of traces as a round-the-clock news channel.
S. 157 ... the Acheulean hand chopper ... knives of the early Paleolithic were produced practically unchanged for at least almost a million years. ... it is impossible to imagine that our species would start producing the same model of car even within ten years ...
This means that the archantropians did not yet have a "understanding of death." Yes, there was a proto-language that already developed concepts, categories based on iconic signs, formed the sound row of the language, syntax, contributed to physical selection: speech control, Broca's area and Wernicke's area were formed, and so on. It's like teaching a small person a language, only for two million years. It is necessary to approach “understanding the problem” with a certain system of abstract concepts, with a syntax that organizes the language and interactions of abstracts, categories, and so on. Unable to see that death is behind every detail of the world around them, the archantrophes did not have the motivation to develop their tools. But the fact that they developed a proto-language is for sure, tk. once the "understanding of death" came, it was the "big bang", the same "cognitive revolution",as formulated by Yuval Noah Harari, who gave birth to ritual, culture, knowledge and development.
P. 157 You cannot find a moment in which you would take a parent and his child and be able to say: "This baby is a real person, but his parent is not." Yet somewhere along this long journey, our thinking changed, and changed quite quickly ...
There is such a moment: this is the "understanding of death." And it's not for nothing that there is an analogy with a child. A child who has not yet understood death is, as it were, “holy,” “immaculate,” “non-moral”. Children run naked on the beach for this very reason. And they stop running naked for this very reason. In the plot about "expulsion from paradise", Adam and Eve cover up shame only "by knowing death", and the knowledge of its existence is the acquisition of the categories of "good and evil". The child's integrity lies precisely in the fact that he does not understand anything that is dangerous to the world around him, just as he cannot understand how he can harm the world.
Children become aware of death at 4-6 years of age [Yalom 1999]. This critical "transition point" is precisely what changes thinking irrevocably. A person completely reconsiders his attitude to the world: he has the misfortune to understand death, as well as happiness sometimes to forget about it.
P. 271 The process of creating a niche determines the occupation of a representative of the species and, as a result, the type of society in which this species will live. It makes no difference whether a niche is created under the influence of instinct, slowly, for millions of years, or through cultural learning, over some millennia. The niche determines the difference.
This is a serious mistake. Yes, niche theory is rightly captured in terms of considering the evolution of species and the formation of premises. But what then does the “qualitative transition of a person” consist in, if the niche both determined the species and continues to determine it? If we consider the described situation of the appearance of “ethics as a method” in a person, then we see a huge difference. Actually, it explains why “selection” takes millions of years, and “ethics” takes millennia. Whatever the ants build, they have no problem, task, or purpose. They do not have a plan for an anthill, and they cannot decide what could be constructively "better" or "worse". "Worse" in relation to what or "better" in relation to what? If they do not know about death, then they cannot have a method of assessment. Rather, he is, but outside of them. Selection decides which anthill is worse and which is better,and he does not inform the ants about it.
. 272 , , .
Several points arise here: the niche has given us only signs. And only man himself could decipher and apply them. This gave a person a language, and language includes a system of times, and only consciousness using a system of times can be called Reason. But Reason can also be applied in different ways. Saying that "... only the wise use of this mind will save us ...", Bickerton, imperceptibly for himself, begins to use the Ethical Method, which allows him to make decisions about one way or another, to evaluate this path. This means that Reason is only the basis for Ethics. And only Ethics allows Development. Where does Development lead? If the ability to "understand the problem" is the beginning of the path, then the end of the path is "overcoming the problem." Only then is it clear what reason gives us: we gradually learn not only to avoid death, like the rest of living nature. We are learning to overcome death.This is the very same "freedom". This is the meaning of belief in the "immortality" of an exclusively human soul. Yes, only understanding death allows one to believe in immortality. This is the way of man.
We have expanded the area of ​​our presence many times more than the natural purely technical characteristics of our species would allow: we fly in the atmosphere and stratosphere, we go into space, we are active in oceans, seas and rivers. And this is all without any genetic rearrangements of your body. No selection, no physical evolution.
So far, we have received the main successes in the field of technical overcoming: from a digging stick to a nuclear reactor, but these achievements are not part of a person physically. There are also achievements at a level that is physically a part of a person: molecular biotechnology and genetic engineering. The same vaccination is the creation of an additional opportunity in your body. The vaccinated person is already formally a superman. At least technically, he is "super" of what he could be in its pure, natural form.
It is possible that soon we will be able to take into our own hands the work that selection carried out earlier: physically changing our body. If manipulations with antibodies force our body to react in such a way that it becomes not afraid of deadly viruses, and manipulations with DNA can save a person from HIV, then what prevents the development of this direction from going further and further?
Output
If for a person the source of "good and evil" is the attitude towards death, and ethics is the method of conscious Overcoming, then it remains only to tackle, in fact, to solve the problem. This is a matter of constructive bioethics.
To load robots and AI with human ethics, you need to somehow give them the concept of death. Actually, it was to this understanding that Elik came as a result of the Soviet film, when he collided with his frame (a bandit magnetic suitcase). Until he understood the limitations, he could not understand people.
Sources used
1. Aristotle Nicomachean ethics.
2. Bickerton D. The language of Adam: How people created language, how language created people. // M .: Languages ​​of Slavic Cultures, 2012.
3. Wittgenstein L. Lecture on Ethics, 1929.
4. "The Adventures of Electronics", TV movie 1979.
5. Nietzsche F. Beyond Good and Evil.
6. Popper K.R. Evolutionary epistemology.
7. Tomasello M. The Origins of Human Communication, 2011.
8. Trier, von L. The House That Jack Built, 2018.
9. Heidegger M. Being and Time.
10. Harari Yu.N. Sapiens A Brief History of Humanity.
11. Jaspers K. General psychopathology.
12. Berta L. Death and the Evolution of Language. / Hum Stud (2010) 33: 425-444. DOI 10.1007 / s10746-011-9170-4
13. Yalom ID Existential Psychotherapy. / NY: “Basic Books”, 1980 M .: “Class”, 1999 Translated by T.S. Drabkina
14. Mayne, B., Berry, O., Davies, C. et al. A genomic predictor of lifespan in vertebrates . Sci Rep 9, 17866 (2019).
15. Olds, J., Milner, P. Positive Reinforcement Produced by Electrical Stimulation of Septal Area and Other Regions of Rat Brain. / Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47 (6), 1954, 419-427. doi: 10.1037 / h0058775
16. Savage-Rumbo, Susan On the monkeys who write
17. Van Evra, JW Death. Theor Med Bioeth 5, 197-207 (1984). doi.org/10.1007/BF00489491