THE
EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT
John Stewart (http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/
)
This article was published
in the September 2003 issue of the online journal Metanexus which can be found
at:
http://www.metanexus.net/monthly/2003.09.html
Adaptability
is of central importance to the evolutionary process. It is through adaptation that organisms are able to survive in
changing environments, become better suited to their existing environment, or
expand into new environments. In
general, organisms that are more adaptable can be expected to be more
successful in evolutionary terms. A
major improvement in adaptive ability is a major evolutionary advance.
Humans
are the most adaptable organism to live on this planet. We use our rapidly improving science and
technology to survive and satisfy our adaptive goals in a wide range of
environments. Whatever adaptive problem
we put our minds to, we can generally find a solution. We have proven far more adaptable than
organisms that evolve by gene-based evolution.
It took millions of years for genetic evolution to discover how to
produce reptiles that fly, while humans developed the technology to achieve
this in a few thousand years. The
massive adaptive improvements seen in human capacities over recent centuries
are significantly greater than could be achieved by genetic evolution over
hundreds of millions of years.
Whatever
our wants, whatever our needs, we are very effective at finding ways to
manipulate our environment to achieve them.
But we are very poor at achieving things that we do not want. We don’t use our creativity to find better
ways to achieve things we are not motivated to achieve. In evolutionary terms, this turns out to be
the central limitation in human adaptability.
Typically
we do not see this as a limitation. It
does not prevent us from doing anything that we want to do. It does not stop us from living happy and
fulfilled lives. We do not feel
restricted because we have no desire to do what we have no desire to do. If we evaluate our adaptability by asking
whether it enables us to satisfy our needs and wants, we continue to see
ourselves as being highly adaptable.
But
if we measure our adaptive ability in evolutionary terms, we reach a very
different conclusion. What if our
continued evolutionary success demands that we adapt in ways that conflict with
the satisfaction of our existing needs and wants? What if our existing
motivations and needs do not produce the behaviours that are best in
evolutionary terms? These sorts of conflicts between our needs and evolution’s
needs seem highly likely to emerge during our evolutionary future. It is improbable that the needs and wants
implanted in us by our evolutionary past will produce the behaviour that is
also optimal for our future. This means
that our adaptability is seriously limited in evolutionary terms.
There
is an enormous range of behaviours, life styles and technologies that we would
not want given our current needs and motivations. But these might be critically important for achieving
evolutionary success in the future. We
have a very large evolutionary blind spot.
We are not motivated to explore an immense variety of adaptive
possibilities, no matter how useful they may be in evolutionary terms. Until we overcome this limitation, we will
continue to use genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and other
technological advances to satisfy our past evolutionary needs and conditioning,
rather than to achieve future evolutionary success.
If
we are to be successful in evolutionary terms in the future, we will need to
overcome this adaptive limitation. We
will have to be able to do whatever it takes for future success. Humanity will need to free itself from the
needs and wants installed in us by our biological and cultural past. For this we will find that we will need to
develop in ways that have traditionally been classified as spiritual. Humanity will need to widely adopt the
practices currently associated with spiritual development if we are to continue
to be successful in evolutionary terms.
To
get a better understanding of how human adaptability would need to change in
the future, it is useful to see how adaptability has improved during the past
evolution of life on Earth. This will
enable us to locate the current level of human adaptability within a long
sequence of evolutionary improvements.
We will see how our current level surpassed previous abilities, but how
it too is limited. This will help
identify the new capacities we would have to develop if we are to overcome
these limitations. It will point to the
new psychological skills and capacities we need if we are to overcome our
current deficiencies.
There
are a number of quite distinct mechanisms that adapt organisms on our planet[1]. One of the first to emerge was gene-based
natural selection. With this mechanism,
organisms produce offspring that differ genetically from each other and from
their parents. The genetic difference
might produce a change within the organism that carries it. This changed characteristic might in turn
make the individual more successful and have a greater number of surviving
offspring. If so, the proportion of
individuals that carry the genetic difference will increase, and the genetic
difference will spread throughout the population. The population will be better adapted, having acquired an
improved characteristic. Gene-based
natural selection discovers adaptations by trying out changes amongst
offspring.
But
gene-based natural selection operates only across generations. It does not adapt individual organisms
during their life. It is unable to
discover new adaptations by trying out changes within the individual while it
lives. Obviously an adaptive mechanism
that could do so would have a significant advantage in evolutionary terms. It could discover and implement improved
adaptations continuously within individuals, long before genetic evolution was
able to do so.
Somewhat
ironically, the adaptive arrangements that operate within organisms during
their life were discovered and established by genetic evolution. Genetic evolution has developed the superior
adaptive mechanisms that have the potential to replace it, at least in
humans. The first adaptive mechanisms
established by genetic evolution searched for better adaptation by trying out
changes within the organism, using trial and error. But how could the organism’s systems know whether a particular
change had improved the organism’s adaptation? This was a key challenge for
genetic evolution—it had to install the organism with some way of identifying
the internal changes that were beneficial in evolutionary terms.
This
challenge was easier in the case of changes that produced some immediate
improvement in the functioning of the organism. The efficacy of a change could be judged against its immediate
effects within the organism. For
example, changes to the amount of oxygen delivered to a tissue could be
evaluated by their effect on the metabolic rate in the tissue.
The
challenge could not be met so easily for changes that might produce longer-term
evolutionary advantage, without immediate beneficial effects on the
organism. Behaviour that leads to
sexual reproduction provides a clear example.
These behaviours have no immediate pay-off for the organism. They do not improve its functioning, and may
even impede it. How could evolution fit
out organisms so that they implemented behavioural changes that led towards
successful reproduction, and rejected behaviour that did not?
The
answer discovered by genetic evolution was to install organisms with an
internal reward system. This system
rewards individuals internally when they try out behaviours that are beneficial
in evolutionary terms, and punishes them when they do otherwise. We experience these internal rewards as
various kinds of attractive feelings, motivations and emotions. The habits and behaviour patterns that an
organism adopts are those that are positively reinforced by its internal reward
system. Its behaviour and lifestyle is
shaped by the goals that are established by its motivations and emotions.
The
internal rewards and punishments act as proxies for evolutionary success. Genetic evolution tunes the system of
motivations and emotions so that when an organism pursues its internal rewards,
it acts in a way that leads to evolutionary success. An organism’s motivations and emotions guide it to discover and
implement adaptations that are beneficial in evolutionary terms. If circumstances change, and a particular
behaviour is no longer optimal in evolutionary terms, genetic evolution will
modify the internal reward system so that the behaviour is no longer
reinforced. Genetic evolution adapts
the internal reward system so that the organism’s goals continue to be aligned
with evolutionary success.
Other
important developments in the evolution of adaptive mechanisms within organisms
were learning and imitation. Once an
organism discovered by trial-and-error that a particular change was useful in
particular circumstances, learning enabled it to implement that adaptive change
whenever those circumstances arose again.
And imitation enabled an organism to adopt an adaptive change discovered
by another individual, without having to discover it for itself. Both these improvements reduced the amount
of trial-and-error that organisms had to use to adapt.
But
the most significant and far-reaching advance in adaptability came with the
development of a capacity for mental modelling[2]. This capacity is very familiar to us—it is
most fully developed in humans. We use
thinking and other mental representations to model the effects of our behaviour
on our environment. So instead of
having to try out alternative actions in practice, humans can use mental models
to predict their effects. We can try
out possible adaptations mentally. This
significantly reduces the need for costly trial and error in the search for
adaptive behaviour, and enables us to take account of the (predicted) future
consequences of our actions.
Our ability to test alternative behaviours mentally is the basis of our capacity to plan ahead, imagine alternatives, invent and adapt technology, build structures such as houses and roads, radically modify our external environment for our adaptive goals, establish long-term objectives, imagine how we might change the world, develop strategic plans, design projects and undertake activities that pay off only in the future (such as plant crops and feed animals).
The
acquisition of language was a critically important step forward in our ability
to construct mental models. Language
and associated forms of communication enabled humans to share the knowledge
used for building models. Communication
enabled all members of a society to acquire and use the knowledge discovered by
any individual. It also enabled knowledge
to be accumulated across the generations.
The progressive accumulation of knowledge has enabled humans to model a
greater range of interactions with our environment, and to predict the
consequences of our actions over wider scales of space and time. This has enabled us to discover more
effective ways of achieving our adaptive goals and obtaining positive
reinforcement from our internal reward systems.
Our
ability to construct and manipulate models has also improved as we have learnt
to augment our mental abilities with external artefacts such as pen and paper,
books, recording devices, computers and other forms of artificial
intelligence. Our mental adaptability
can be expected to continue to improve as humanity accumulates more knowledge
about how the external world responds to our interventions and as artificial
intelligence is developed.
The
full evolutionary potential of mental modelling is obvious. Once organisms have accumulated sufficient
knowledge, their modelling will often be superior to the internal reward system
at identifying the adaptations that are best in evolutionary terms. No longer would the organisms have to be
guided towards evolutionary success solely by a system of motivations and
emotions. Instead the organisms could use
mental modelling to identify and implement the actions that would enable it to
survive and flourish into the future.
Mental
models have the potential to be far superior than the internal reward system
established by genetic evolution in the organisms’ evolutionary past. The motivations and volitions (moral or
otherwise) that were favoured by Darwinian selection in their evolutionary past
are highly unlikely to be optimal for their successful survival throughout the
next million years. And as
circumstances change into the future, the values and motivations that are
optimal are likely to change repeatedly.
But
mental modelling is not able to fulfil its enormous adaptive potential when it
first emerges. Initially, it does not
have the capability to take over the adaptation of the organism. It has not accumulated the detailed knowledge
and information needed to predict the future consequences of a wide range of
alternative actions. As a result,
modelling will be less effective than the pre-existing motivation and reward
systems at discovering the best adaptations.
However
mental modelling will still provide immediate advantages. It enables the organism to find better ways
of achieving its internal rewards and motivations. The organism can use mental models to identify the behaviours
that will achieve outcomes that produce desirable internal states. Initially mental modelling will not
establish or change the adaptive goals of the organism—it begins as a servant
of the pre-existing motivation and reward systems.
It
is easy to locate humanity within this evolutionary sequence[3]. Humans are not yet organisms that use mental
modelling to adapt in whatever ways are necessary for future evolutionary
success. We are still organisms that
spend their lives pursuing proxies for evolutionary success as ends in
themselves. We use our mental modelling
to work out how to achieve the goals set by our internal reward and motivation
system—goals that we have been fitted out with by natural selection and that
are modified to a limited extent by conditioning during our upbringing. We use the enormous power of mental
modelling to see how we can act on the world to produce desirable psychological
states and avoid unpleasant ones. For most
this means using modelling to pursue sex, wealth, popularity, satisfying relationships,
social status, power, feelings of uniqueness, and so on. And we spend our lives trying to avoid
undesirable psychological states such as those associated with stress, guilt,
depression, loneliness, hunger, and shame.
But
when our evolutionary interests clash with these motivations and emotional
responses, our evolutionary interests lose out. We have not yet developed a comprehensive capacity to free
ourselves from the dictates of our biological and social past. We cannot adapt or modify at will our likes
and dislikes, our emotional reactions, our motivations, what it is that gives
us pleasure or displeasure, our habits, or our personality traits (eg we cannot
change from extrovert to introvert at will).
Few of us can effortlessly ‘turn the other cheek’ even when we can see
mentally that it is in our interests to do so.
This is the case whether these predispositions are largely inherited, or
the product of individual experience during our upbringing.
As
a result, the evolutionary adaptability of humanity is seriously limited. We do not use the immense capacity of mental
modelling to pursue evolutionary ends.
Adaptations exist that are superior in evolutionary terms, we can see
that they are superior, but we do not implement them. Instead we spend our lives chasing positive reinforcement from
our internal reward system. If humanity
is to realise the full evolutionary potential of mental modelling, we will have
to free ourselves from our biological and cultural past.
Can
humans develop such a psychological capacity?
Or will our ability to adapt be forever constrained by the
predispositions resulting from our evolutionary history? Will we be able to
adapt only in directions currently rewarded by our internal reward system,
irrespective of what is best for our evolutionary future? Or can we develop the capacity to move at
right angles to our history and conditioning, and to adapt in whatever ways
will produce future evolutionary success?
Modern
scientific psychology has not yet developed an understanding of how we can
develop a psychological capacity along these lines. To date it has concentrated on understanding how our psychology
currently operates, and how pathologies can be corrected. It has little to say about our potential for
future psychological development.
But
humans have accumulated an extensive body of knowledge and practice about how
we can develop these new psychological capacities. This knowledge is embodied in religious and spiritual
systems. Although some systems are more
explicit about it than others, and some have a number of other goals for
spiritual development, the world’s major religious systems all advocate the
development of an ability to free oneself from particular emotional responses,
desires and motivations. Furthermore,
all systems contain methodologies and practices that can assist the development
of such a capacity.
Despite
the fact that religious systems use widely different terminology to describe
their practices and beliefs, it is possible to identify a broadly common
approach to spiritual development. Most
practices are directed at promoting the emergence of a new self that stands
outside the individual’s emotional states, thoughts, and sensations. This new observing self is not bound up in
the flow of thoughts and feelings and sees them as objects of attention. The individual experiences herself as the
new observing self, as separate from her thoughts, feelings and sensations, and
able to treat them as objects that can be managed and modified[4]. What were once part of the subject are
objects in relation to the new self, and can be managed and controlled by it[5].
This
contrasts with the individual’s experience before a new observing self is
developed. Previously the individual
tended to be absorbed in and identified with emotional reactions and thoughts,
was not aware of herself as separate to them, and could not easily choose
whether to be influenced by them. The
individual experienced herself as her motivations and thoughts, and defined
herself through them and through the personality traits and behaviour patterns
they entrenched.
The
new self is given a wide variety of names in various religious and
philosophical systems, including the silent witness, the true self, Buddha
mind, the Lord, the observer, the soul, atman, the master, Christ
consciousness, the observing “I”, an emergent metasystem transition[6],
and the higher self.
Religious
systems generally promote the emergence of the new self through practices that
separate the mind into an observing part and an observed part. The observing part is the precursor to the
new self. These practices typically
operate by turning attention and awareness inwards, and directing it at mental
contents—at sensations, emotions, motivations, mental images and thoughts as
they arise in the mind. For example,
many religious systems require adherents to struggle against the dictates of
their ‘lower’ desires and impulses.
Doing so directs attention inwards, makes these mental states objects of
attention and begins the separation of the mind into an observing part and an
observed part. The waging of an
internal war against desires and impulses will assist the development a new
self that stands outside them and is no longer identified with them.
Other
practices also enhance the separation of the mind into an observing part and an
observed part. Meditation typically
involves turning attention inwards and making thoughts and emotional states
objects of attention[7]. Similarly the mindfulness practices of
Buddhism and the self-observation[8]
of Gurdjieff promote the development of the new observing self during ordinary
life. These practices focus attention
on the physical sensations, emotions, mental images and thought that arise as
the individual goes about daily activities and interactions. All these techniques emphasise that
self-observation it to be passive and non-judgemental. This assists in ensuring that the new
observing self does not identify with or become absorbed in mental contents as
they arise.
A
number of practices help the observing self to remain separate from mental
contents. Some of these operate by
dampening mental activity and reducing the incidence of intense emotional
experiences. This makes it easier for
the new self to stand outside the flow of mental contents without becoming
absorbed and identified with them.
Examples include practices that take individuals away from the pressures
of normal life such as retreats, monastic life, asceticism, and
pilgrimages. Many systems have also
discovered that meditation is an effective method of tranquillising mental
activity, and that prayer and devotion can have similar effects. Most systems emphasise that repeated effort
and vigilance is needed to maintain separation—the individual will tend to slip
back into identification with thoughts and emotional states, and will find it
very difficult to stand outside and observe them for extended periods.
These
practices also develop the ability of the individual to dispose attention
wilfully and to break the control of attention by emotional states. Devotional practices also enhance this
ability—they require the individual to continually bring attention back to the
object of devotion and away from distractions.
The
new self that can be developed as a result of these practices is relatively
free of the adaptive goals of the internal reward system. Once the emerging new self can remain
functionally separate from motivations and emotional impulses, it can decide
whether or not to be influenced by them.
Instead of ‘going with’ these impulses as they arise, it can decide not
to act on them. This functional
separation also enables the new self to control the disposition of
attention. The new self can direct
attention and energy only at activities that serve the aims of the self.
As
the observing self accumulates knowledge about the operation of the
motivational and emotional system, it improves its capacity to manage
them. The individual learns how to
modify the goals of her internal reward system, and is then able to align them
with goals and objectives of her choosing.
As a result, the individual can find motivation and emotional
satisfaction in whatever activities serve her goals and objectives. For example, if an individual chooses to
pursue evolutionary success as her ultimate goal, she will be able to align her
internal reward system with evolutionary goals[9].
The
metaphor of a carriage (or chariot) drawn by horses has been used by a number
of religious and philosophical systems to represent the psychology of a person
who has developed these capacities[10]. Generally the driver is the intellect, the
horses the emotions, the carriage the body, and the master in the carriage (or
lord of the chariot) is the new self.
The master coordinates the actions of the various components so that
they cooperate together to serve the objectives and goals set by the
master. Importantly, this metaphor
emphasises that the new self does not repress, override, or take over the
functions of the emotions and the body.
A competent higher self, like a competent manager of a modern
corporation, or like the conductor of an orchestra, works with and makes best
use of the special abilities of the elements it manages.
Why
have religions developed this extensive body of knowledge and practice about
freeing humans from the requirements of their motivational and emotional
systems? A key reason is that religions generally promote adherence to ethical
systems that conflict with the dictates of our internal reward system.
Religions have learnt that it takes much more than an intellectual commitment
to an ethical system before an individual is able to implement it. Reason does not control the passions until
the individual has developed a new psychological structure that has the
capacity to manage the individual’s internal reward system.
Another
reason for religions’ deep interest in this area is the intuition that only a
self that has transcended emotional impulses could conceivably live beyond the
body. A self that is bound up in bodily
desires and emotional responses will surely die when the body that gave rise to
them dies. A number of religious
traditions that take this position also believe that the end point of spiritual
development is the fusion of this transcendent self with the absolute (eg God).
Of
course, the great majority of the members of religions do not develop a higher
self. Most do not adopt in full the practices
prescribed by their religion, and few understand the practices and beliefs in
the terms described here. Very few
Christians develop the capacity to effortlessly turn the other cheek in the
full sense of that metaphor. If the
practices of spiritual development are to succeed in transforming the
psychology of humanity in general, they will need to be enhanced and
developed. This is most likely to be
achieved if the practices are investigated by modern scientific psychology, and
eventually integrated into it. If
spiritual practices are subjected to the sceptical scrutiny and rigorous
testing of modern science, the practices and beliefs that are grounded in fact
could be separated from those that are embedded in supposition and baseless
mysticism. And the powerful techniques
and extensive resources of modern science could be used to discover new and
better practices. This process would
continue the progressive expansion of science into new domains that has taken
place throughout its relatively young history.
Science has grown by incorporating and developing bodies of knowledge
that were initially unsystematic and riddled with contradictions and folk
knowledge.
Until
we humans develop the capacity to free ourselves from our biological and
cultural past, our evolutionary adaptability will be seriously
constrained. We will not use the
enormous potential of mental modelling to identify and implement the actions
that will contribute most to the evolutionary success of humanity. Instead of using our technological advances
and economic resources for evolutionary goals, we will continue to use them
only to serve the needs and wants established by our evolutionary past and
conditioning. Humanity will continue to
spend its time on this planet masturbating stone age desires, going nowhere in
evolutionary terms.
Alternatively
we could massively enhance our evolutionary adaptability by freeing ourselves
from the dictates of our biological and cultural past. We could develop the ability to align our
internal reward and motivation system with evolutionary goals. This would enable us to find satisfaction
and motivation in whatever adaptations serve these goals. With this capacity we could choose to
implement whatever actions would advance the evolutionary success of humanity,
and would find satisfaction and motivation in doing so. This would enable us to use the immense
power of mental modelling to pursue
evolutionary goals, rather than continue to blindly pursue outdated and
inaccurate proxies for evolutionary success as ends in themselves.
If
we make this transition, humans would become self-evolving beings, able to
adapt in whatever directions are necessary for future evolutionary success,
relatively unfettered by our biological past or by our previous life
experiences. As we move out into the
solar system, the galaxy and the universe, we would be able to change our
adaptive goals and behaviour in whatever ways were demanded by the challenges
we meet. We would be able to
continually recreate ourselves, to change human nature at will, to repeatedly
sacrifice what we are for what we can become, to continually die and be born
again.
[1] For a more detailed
discussion of the evolution of these mechanisms see Dennett, D. C.
(1995), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York: Simon and Schuster).
[2] The evolutionary
significance of mental modelling was first clearly recognised by Popper, K. R.
(1972), Objective knowledge - an evolutionary approach (Oxford:
Clarendon).
[3] For a fuller discussion see
Stewart, J. E. (2000), Evolution’s Arrow (Rivett:
Chapman Press) [online at http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/
].
[4] For more on the relationship
between the new self and mental contents, see Nicol, M. (1980b), ‘The Four Bodies of man’, in Psychological
Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (London: Watkins) 1,
pp. 218-35.
[5] This point is made very well
by Keegan, R. (1994), In over our
heads – the mental demands of modern life (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press).
[6] See Heylighen, F. (1991),
‘Cognitive Levels of Evolution: from pre-rational to meta-rational’, in The
Cybernetics of Complex Systems – Self-organisation, Evolution and Social Change,
F. Geyer Ed., (Salinas, California: Intersystems) pp.75-91.
[7] For example, see Goleman,
D. (1988), The meditative mind – the
varieties of meditative experience (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons).
[8] For more on self-observation
see Nicol, M. (1980c), ‘Commentary on
Self-Observation and ‘I’s’, in Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings
of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (London: Watkins) 1, pp. 302-17.
[9] This notion is developed in
greater detail in Stewart, J. E. (2001), ‘Future psychological evolution’, Dynamical Psychology [online at http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/
].
[10] For example, see the Katha Upanishad, Plato’s Phaedrus, and Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s tales to his Grandson.