Against Universal Consciousness

The only way human beings can understand the world around them is through their own experiences. This is limiting and predisposes each of us to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the inability to view the world from any perspective other than one's own and the tendency to frame all issues in terms of how they relate to the needs of the self. So, in discussions of politics, I respond to all comments from my individual, egocentric worldview. Likewise, my deliberations on topics ranging from sports to business to child rearing must all be interpreted through the filter of my ego. Egocentrism manifests in every aspect of human life.

A natural outgrowth of egocentrism is the inclination to anthropomorphize. Because we are restricted to understanding external items through the lens of human experience, we often

attribute human characteristics to non-human subjects. While my dog, Zeus, certainly understands his world as only a dog can understand it, I constantly (and inaccurately) bestow upon him a full range of human traits. It is intuitive to me that folks who assume the universe is endowed with cosmic consciousness are, likewise, anthropomorphizing.

While human consciousness was once a subject considered too enigmatic for scientific study, recent technologies have helped to demystify consciousness.
Historically, consciousness has been described as being like a stream. Indeed, people may subjectively perceive thoughts as flowing like a stream, however, “stream of consciousness” is a misleading and ultimately inaccurate metaphor. “Hive of consciousness” is a better fit for our current understanding of the phenomenon. “Stream” implies a linear progression of thoughts moving forward from a central source. Neuroscience informs us that human thought patterns more closely resemble a popcorn popper than a stream.

Consciousness is composed of neuronal firings from different parts of the brain. In simple terms, consciousness is a byproduct of the brain interacting with itself. Remove part of the brain and consciousness is altered. Remove all of the brain and consciousness is eliminated. 

Consciousness changes but does not stop during sleep. The brain remains active and different areas of the brain are still able to communicate with one another during sleep. When one awakens from sleep, one typically still

has some awareness of the passage of time and may remember dream experiences. However, when a person is put under general anesthesia, communications within the brain are blocked. When one awakens from general anesthesia, there is no sense of the passage of time and no dreaming. Consciousness is eradicated when internal communications between various parts of the brain are obstructed. Consciousness is produced by the brain and can not exist independently of the brain. No brain, no consciousness.

Since consciousness is a function of the brain, and there is no evidence that the universe itself has a brain, it would stand to reason that the universe is not conscious. 

Wise and powerful caregivers comfort the egos of human children. The egos of human adults desire similar comfort. In the absence of an actual wise and powerful caregiver, human adults invent gods or anthropomorphize the universe to meet this egocentric need.

Conspiracy Theorists are Lazy Thinkers

I used the term "lazy thinkers" to be provocative.

The truth is that lazy thinking is nothing more than "natural thinking." Every lower animal on the planet operates on intuition, or "what feels right." Humans who have not learned the skills of critical thinking naturally engage in the same thinking patterns as other animals.  

I am attracted to conspiracy theories. There is something about the idea of a conspiracy that titillates a paranoid vein that runs through the human psyche. However, conspiracy theories say much about us and very little about reality. It is not that conspiracies are impossible, just that the likelihood of successfully executing a large scale conspiracy approaches the impossible. The old adage, “Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead,” rings true more often than not.

For any given belief, we will encounter disputing evidence (indicating that the belief is false) and supporting evidence (indicating that the belief is true). Folks with highly developed critical thinking skills approach these two pools of opposing evidence by objectively evaluating the quality and the weight of both pools. The foundation of a developed intellect is the willingness to change positions when disputing evidence clearly outweighs supporting evidence. This requires a great deal of emotional maturity. Our beliefs are rooted in our egos and we are wired to protect our egos at all cost. Shifting positions when disputing evidence outweighs supporting evidence also requires a deep commitment to truth. Truths are often uncomfortable and/or undesirable. Critical thinking requires that objective truth (what is true) must take priority over individual ego needs (what feels true or what we would like to be true).   

The Critical Thinker's thought process looks like this:

The Conspiracy Theorist engages an entirely different process when presented with conflicting pools of evidence. The conspiracy theorist accepts ALL supporting evidence, regardless of quality, and rejects ALL disputing evidence, also regardless of quality. Disputing evidence will either be ignored or the source for the evidence will be baselessly maligned. The ultimate result of this process is the elimination for the opportunity to learn, aka willful ignorance. In the words of Dudley Field Malone, "I have never in my life learned anything from someone who agreed with me."

The Conspiracy Theorist's thought process looks like this:

Identifying Quality Sources of Information:

In the midst of the information age, distinguishing good information from bad information can be extremely difficult. People untrained in recognizing logical fallacies can be easily manipulated to believe even the most absurd claims (examples: The moon landing was faked. Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim. The government is hiding UFOs. Hillary Clinton is a serial killer who runs child sex rings. Ronald Reagan was in the Illuminati.). Relying on "reasoning" from outside sources to establish where one stands on the issues is akin to relying on a car salesman to determine which automobile you should buy.

• Despite claims to the contrary, mainstream sources of information tend to be of much higher quality than unconventional sources. Every place in the free world gets pretty much the same news. The mainstream media in the US reflects reputable news outlets in England, France, Germany, India, Australia, Japan, etc. The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, Google News, The BBC, Reuters, and most professional journals are reliable, albeit not perfect sources for accurate news. These sources mirror the news from the rest of the free world. News reported by outlets in countries with authoritarian governments such as those of Iran, Russia, and North Korea, like news reported by Right Wing media outlets and fringe Left Wing outlets in the US, report very different news that is often in direct conflict with legitimate sources.
• News sources from authoritarian regions, as well as, sources from Right Wing and fringe Left Wing American outlets, use the "news" as an instrument for propaganda. However, citizens in countries with authoritarian governments have no choice but to consume fake news, while a huge percentage of mainstream Right Wingers and nearly all fringe Left Wingers in the US avoid legitimate news by choice. THIS is how a narcissistic, predatory, conspiracy theorist, who makes fun of the handicapped and spouts obscene vulgarities, became President of the United States.
• 

  Mathematics and scientific research represents the gold standard for quality information at this time. The statement, "any position can be proven with statistics," is patently false. It is true that statistics can be used by dishonest presenters to manipulate those who are untrained in statistics, however, there is an ultimate truth that will be revealed through the scrupulous use of statistics.
• While scientific research is often inaccurate, every advancement in the modern world has resulted from the application of science. As yet, there is no process more effective in the discerning accurate understanding of the physical universe than science. If the efficacy of science is not overwhelmingly evidenced by your own life experiences (as it should be to any self-aware human being), then developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method and the peer-review process should dispel any lingering doubts.

Consider The Global Warming Hoax:

Everyone knows the statistic that 97% of climatologists concur with the research that supports global warming as a legitimate phenomenon exacerbated by human activity. 

The conspiracy theory holds that first, global warming is a hoax conjured by the Democratic Party in the US. Second, scientists have skewed their research data in favor of global warming in order to procure grant money from liberal universities.  And third, because the Democratic Party has a greater interest in conservation and environmental protections and the Republican Party has a greater interest in protecting industry, Democrats benefit from the acceptance of climate change as an actual and man-made phenomenon.

•  Global warming was dreamed up by the Democratic Party.
• The 97% of scientists figure is not limited to American scientists. It means that 97% of the scientists in the entire world accept the findings on climate change. Even if the Democratic Party were important enough to American scientists to risk sabotaging their own careers by falsifying data, it is inconceivable that scientists from every other country in the world would be so invested! Even if we were to change the premise from a plot invented by the Democratic Party to a plot invented by liberals in general, the idea of such a global initiative is ludicrous.
• Scientists receive research grants from liberal universities.
• Many scientists work for universities. Others work for government agencies. Still others work for industry. At any rate, the funds provided for research grants are typically supplied by outside sources and not by universities. Even if we accepted the bizarre idea that scientists across the globe could be bribed into torpedoing the integrity of their chosen profession, we would still need an industry capable of providing the motherlode of funds needed to accomplish the task. Which industry would stand a better chance of pulling this off, Big Oil (which benefits from disproving global warming) or Big Windmill (which benefits from proving global warming true)?
• Democrats profit from the efficacy of climate change
• Which makes more sense? 30 years ago, some Democrat mastermind or thinktank randomly invented an environmental phenomenon and was able to secretly coerce 97% of the scientists on Earth to fake research data... Or that the most lucrative industry in the world advanced a conspiracy theory to protect its own interests?

In truth, the global warming phenomenon has no more to do with politics than gravity theory or germ theory. Scientists simply support the efficacy of global warming because there is an ocean of high-quality supporting evidence for the theory and a tiny drip of low quality disputing evidence against the theory. If new, high quality, evidence disputing global warming grew to outweigh existing supporting evidence, every scientist worth her salt would shift positions and we would find the vast majority of scientists denying the theory. This is how the developed intellect operates.

Four Resons Why Religion Should Be Avoided at All Cost

REASON 1

Religion is an obstacle to moral development. According to psychological theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, the first stage of moral development centers on the individual modifying his/her behavior in order to avoid punishment and earn rewards. Small children, dogs, and adult sociopaths tend to operate at this level of moral development. 

In the second stage of moral development, the individual desires to be considered a good person and so conforms to an external system of rules (example: laws, cultural norms, family values, and religion). An internal moral sense cultivated by indoctrination to external belief systems becomes deeply ingrained in people. At this level of development, moral "feelings" are mistaken for undeniable truths. For many reasons, questioning the validity of religious morals can ignite extreme hostility and defensiveness.

The pitfall of uncritically accepting a moral code learned from one’s culture, such as that offered by religion, is that it may include elements that are truly harmful to others. An individual raised in the environment of Nazi Germany would have the same deep commitment to that moral code as anyone indoctrinated into any external moral code.  In the pre-Civil War South, ministers used the Bible to justify the enslavement of other human beings. The Bible and the Koran are currently being used to justify racism and homophobia. The results? Torture, murder, and suicide.

The highest level of moral development requires a critical examination of values using universal litmuses like harm done, fairness, and empathy. Without a rational, compassionate evaluation of every aspect of one’s moral code, the potential for harm is great. Religion is a barrier to advanced moral development.

REASON 2

Religion inhibits intellectual development. The touchstone for intellectual growth is changing positions when disputing evidence for a pre-existing belief outweighs supporting evidence for said belief. Most of the dominant religions require accepting the legitimacy of their doctrines not on evidence, but on faith. Faith is often considered an admirable quality. However, faith and gullibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. Webster's defines faith as, "(a)firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Gullible means, "easily persuaded to believe something." So, aren't faith and gullibility inseparable? In other words, wouldn't it require gullibility to firmly believe something without proof?

Believing without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god? Disregarding evidence in favor of faith-based beliefs perpetuates ignorance. Religion is a barrier to advanced intellectual development.

REASON 3

Religion obstructs social development. In a modern global community, appreciation for the benefits of cultural diversity is paramount. Of the six Americans who won Nobel Prizes for Science in 2016, all were immigrants. By nature, religions are exclusionary. They create an "us and them" mentality wherein the "us" are good and the "them," not as good. This kind of social identity has been at the root of every war since the dawn of time. 

Prepackaged, religious beliefs rob people of the opportunity to create personal meaning and to truly define a unique understanding of self separate from cultural definitions. The number one regret of terminally ill patients is that they conformed to the values of others rather than living lives true to themselves. Religion is an impediment to social development.

REASON 4

Religion is a barrier to emotional development. Emotional maturity results from coming to terms with difficult, often frightening, realities. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions is one aspect of emotional immaturity. Children tend to blame others or make excuses for mistakes. Mature adults take responsibility, attempt to make reparations, and try to learn from mistakes. While Christianity holds the individual accountable to a degree, it also provides an easy loophole. Per Christian doctrine, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was absolved of responsibility for his actions before his death because he sincerely asked for God's forgiveness. 

Another element of Christianity inconsistent with taking responsibility is the concept of Satan. Satan is ultimately responsible for all evil in the world and God is ultimately responsible for all good. 

By encouraging belief in a fantasy afterlife, religion inhibits adults from maturely coming to terms with mortality. Developing the emotional maturity to deal with the realities of death, unanswered questions, and all of the other uncertainties of human life without resorting to magical and superstitious fantasies requires courage and unyielding integrity. One must be committed to all truths regardless of how scary or difficult. Religion impedes emotional development.

Given that religion is an obstacle to nearly every domain of human development, I consider it a social ill. It is clear to me that outcomes such as charity, love, kindness, and peace have been mistakenly associated with religion. Historically, the opposite outcomes of greed, hate, cruelty, and conflict have just as often been the fruits of religion. Benevolent outcomes result from empathy, a quality independent of religion. If I value the Greek ideal of the fully developed person, I can not also value a system that prohibits human development. 

How to NEVER be Suckered by Statistics on Race Again!

If you don't understand how statistics work, it is easy to be manipulated by intentionally misleading data. Since the races are not evenly represented in our population (64% White, 16% Hispanic, 12% Black, 4% Asian, 2% two or more races), a direct comparison between races in America on any phenomenon will be racially biased and lead to a false conclusion.

Hypothetically, suppose .1% of all Americans have been falsely arrested. Half of them were white and half were black. Saying that 50% of Americans who were falsely arrested were white and 50% were black is true, but it is a racially biased statistic because it doesn’t account for the fact that 64% of Americans are white and only 12% are black.

To factor out this bias, comparisons must be made per 100 black people and per 100 white people (or per 10,000, or per 100,000, or per 1,000,000). By calculating per 100 black Americans, these same data would show that 64% of the people who were falsely arrested were black. And, per 100 white people, only 12% of people who were falsely arrested were white. Now the data lead to an informed conclusion rather than a biased one.

So, the next time you see statistics on race that fail to show the data per 100,000 (or some other round number), you will know that someone is trying to sucker you!

How to Develop the Intellect: Why Emotions Matter… A LOT!

 This article is not about smart and stupid. Smart and stupid are terminal states over which one has no control. Conversely, intellectual development, like physical development, can be acquired by nearly anyone willing to put in the necessary work. Intellect is the capacity for reason and for acquiring an objective mental grasp. The key words in this definition are “reason” and “objective.” Reason is the ability to arrive at an understanding through logic. Objective means not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So, a developed intellect requires both logic and objectivity.

First, one must be able and willing to apply logic. This means adhering to strict principles of validity. There is a necessary logic to the arrangement of parts in a gasoline engine, an electrical circuit, and even a simple door latch. The validity of the arrangement of the respective parts is shown by the effective functioning of each device. If the parts are arranged illogically, the device won’t function properly. The scientific method is applied logic. The validity of the scientific method is shown by the myriad advancements we enjoy in modern life. Nearly every object in your field of vision as you read this post resulted from the application of the scientific method. The profound impact of science on human life cannot be overstated. Adhering to a belief that is clearly disputed by logic signals an intellectual blind spot.

Second, and equally as important as logic, is objectivity. Why would one stubbornly hold on to a belief that is obviously illogical or disputed by huge amounts of scientific evidence? The answer is simple… emotions. Our emotions evolved for one reason and one reason only, to keep us in the gene pool. Emotions guided primitive humans to behave in ways that kept them alive long enough to bear offspring. In the short run, emotion has far more power over our choices than does intellect. Emotional responses to danger quickly override intellect and prompt us to run or fight. These knee-jerk behaviors served us well for thousands of years. Emotions are about survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, our incredible intellectual capacity was an awesome upgrade, but not much of a survival feature.

Emotional responses are closely linked to another human survival trait, egocentrism. Every animal on earth, including the human animal, strives to preserve the “self.” It is our nature to evaluate situations in terms of the self in opposition to everything that is not the self. So, when illogical information is presented to a human animal in a way that makes the self feel emotionally validated, it is a very natural human reaction to accept that piece of information as true. In psychology, we call this cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is the primary obstacle to intellectual development. The scientific method is a series of procedures that help supersede our cognitive biases. Compare the relative pace of human advances prior to and then after the scientific revolution. This comparison makes it crystal clear that the survival traits that worked so well for so long also kept us from moving forward in our accurate understanding of our world.

A developed intellect requires a willingness to bypass your ego's emotional needs

and accept information that often"feels" uncomfortable. This is a tall order and it requires a lifetime of practice.

Why bad critical thinkers believe they are good critical thinkers

"When you are dead you don’t know it, but it is difficult for the people around you. Same as when you haven’t developed critical thinking skills."

I ripped off and modified this quote from an internet meme. Unfortunately, it relates a fundamental truth. Good critical thinkers know that they are good critical thinkers, because critical thinking requires training. It is an internal battle between the instinctual pull of human egocentrism and a disciplined commitment to evidence and logic. Non-critical thinkers don’t realize it, because they don’t really understand what the term “critical thinking” means. This lack of insight is itself a demonstration of egocentrism. 

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[1] This means that when evidence and logic conflict with what you believe, you change your position. Believing doesn’t make a piece of information true. Neither belief, faith, intuition, gut feelings, nor common sense can be used to validate the accuracy of a piece of information.

For instance, if I believe that the United States is the best country in the world, but I have never lived anywhere else and I have not researched the data on what constitutes the “best” country, then my belief is unfounded. It is based on feelings rather than evidence. “I love my country,” is a statement of feeling and requires no evidence. 

No matter how badly I may “want” a piece of information to be true, no matter how powerfully a piece of information “feels” true, no matter how many other people I respect “believe” a piece of information is true, critical thinking requires the maturity to rise above my own ego needs and reject information that is not supported by evidence and logic. 

The scientific method is critical thought in action. It is a mechanism for factoring out emotion driven human bias. The results of the scientific method are nothing less than every benefit of modern life from space ships, to medicine, to the electronic device you are currently using, to nearly every object in your current field of vision! Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[2][3] Human nature evolved to help us survive in the natural environment. Traits that are adaptive in a primitive culture can be quite maladaptive in a modern culture. As a result, many aspects of human nature hinder progress.

Reliance on gut feelings is natural. Every primitive animal on the planet operates on gut feelings.

Overriding gut feelings in favor of critical evaluation does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing diligent work and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

                                                                                          

---

[1] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[2] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[3] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

Becoming Human

“In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.” Morgan’s Canon

The truth is, we are animals with the potential to develop humanness. Homo sapiens share the following behavioral traits with other species within the Great Ape family:

1.     Formation of social structures

2.     Establishment of pecking orders through demonstrations of dominance

3.     Cooperation within social in-groups (groups of apes/people with which one member identifies and belongs)

4.     Competition/conflict with social outgroups (groups of apes/people that are different from the ones within which a single member belongs and identifies)

5.     Use of language and development of unique cultures[1]

6.     Utilization of instinct and intuition in decision making[2]

Likely related to some unique brain structures,[3] two potential abilities that may be used to define "humanness" are higher order critical thinking and higher order empathy skills.[4] [5] Other animals have been shown to demonstrate critical thought and empathy, so these traits in and of themselves are not exclusively human. However, the human capacity for cultivating these skills to extremely high levels is unique. For our purposes, humanness should be understood as an artificial, social construct and not a scientific distinction. 

Higher order critical thinking and empathy are skills that require development. So, though genetics determine whether or not one falls into the biological category of homo sapiens, a subspecies in the Great Ape family,[6] the characteristics that define true humanness present on a continuum and are not fully developed in all members of the group, Homo Sapiens.

Like all Great Apes, homo sapiens form families and social groups. We LOVE our in-groups whether they be political, religious, regional, national, or sports related. We establish pecking orders within these groups based on dominance. On the playground, human dominance is often determined by who is biggest. As adults, dominance may be determined through superior intelligence, physical strength, wealth, attractiveness, ambition, confidence, or any number of other factors. 

Like chimpanzees, we will often cooperate with our ingroup, but we tend to view outgroups with suspicion. Our nature is to consider them threats and often to classify them as “lesser than” or even “evil.” This instinctual behavior is at the root of all forms of bigotry. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand that a “go to” position for early humans of assuming people who are different are threats would be more adaptive than assuming their benevolence. In the natural environment, early humans were constantly at risk, so tendencies resulting in cautiousness aided in their survival. 

Intuition governs the lives of all animals. It is closely related to instincts housed in primitive brain regions. Intuition, or “gut feeling,” is an automatic, cognitive short-cut that provides a crude, organic, sort of meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[7] The scientific method was born of critical thought. It is a process designed to factor out emotional human biases, such as ingroup/outgroups behaviors. Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[8] [9]

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. H.L. Menken wasn’t far off the mark when he said, “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution… and it is always wrong.” The animal within us is highly attracted to simple solutions.

Prior to the Enlightenment, humans used a simple catch-all to explain any phenomena beyond our understanding, “God.” Few seemed to notice that “God” really wasn’t much of an explanation at all. It simply moved the goal post back one yard. If God causes all things, then what causes God? “God” is still the catch-all for unexplained phenomena. Science has been able to provide evidence-based, rational explanations for most of the physical phenomena we encounter in daily life. The expanse of unknowns that homo sapiens now use God to explain has shrunken to a handful of areas.

Homo sapiens are often not inclined towards critical thinking, and therefore, have a much greater tendency to interpret the world in concrete terms. For human animals, conforming to a solution posed by dominant members of their ingroups is obviously the "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid." Conforming to the decisions of dominant members of one’s group is a trait human animals share with other primates. Critically evaluating the relative merits of dominant group members’ decisions is unique to true humanness.

Higher order critical thinking does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

Some guidelines for critical thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking (Think, talk radio hosts and New Age gurus)

2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition

3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.

4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.

5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.[10]

The scientific method has proven a magnificent modality for examining the world through critical thought. Application of the scientific method has enabled us to advance beyond the wildest imaginings of our ancestors. That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who disagrees with the consensus will be able to demonstrate strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization or opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to not be repeated. Amoeba have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

But, we are not amoeba. Humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe." Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will predictably behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the ingroup over the health and safety of the individual. These animals species engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

Humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Higher order empathy does not mean "sympathy." Many species demonstrate sympathy. The term “sympathy” is from the Greek “sympathia.” It actually means to “feel with someone.”[11] If you feel sad because someone you know lost a loved one, you are demonstrating sympathy. Sympathy can be instinctual and often requires little effort.

Higher order empathy requires the complex attempt to cognitively "see through the eyes of another." Empathy requires effort and imagination. To empathize is to “project” you into another person’s frame of reference.[12] It is our nature to criticize others from our own egocentric viewpoint. This is why we tend to judge the driver in front of us as an idiot when he slams on his brakes but feel perfectly justified when we have to slam on our own brakes. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and, on some level, understand the world from another person's perspective.

Research on feral children has shown that empathy is a learned behavior.[13] Higher order empathy is an extremely difficult skill that many humans rarely even try to master. If all people demonstrated true humanness and regularly employed this skill, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated. Children reared in environments devoid of contact with people do not demonstrate humanness [14]

Take a look in the mirror. Do you practice humanness? If so, you are likely experiencing deep, meaningful relationships with other people. And, you also suffer deeply when you become aware of social injustices (homophobia, racism, genocide, intolerance, man’s inhumanity to man, etc.). You are not easily duped by the barrage of manipulative, emotionally charged, nonsense you receive from the media, the pulpit, and the political arena. You are likely able to override primitive emotions to some degree, enabling you to maintain a healthy body and a stable mind. Your moral code comes from evaluating an ideal based on universals such as “harm done,” “fairness,” and “empathetic understanding” rather than from “how you were raised,” cultural norms, or religious/legal text.

We are all human animals, and this is not a bad thing. We are literally wired to be such and wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, some of these animal traits are not adaptive in a civilized culture. With hard work, metacognition, courage, and a tireless commitment to intellectual honesty, we can all come closer to being truly human.

---

[1] Kappeler, Peter M., and Joan B. Silk. Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Print.

[2] "What Is Intuition, And How Do We Use It?" Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Newly Discovered Brain Region Is Uniquely Human, Scientists Think."International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[4] Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Print.

[5] Elder, Lina. "Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Inquiry Winter XVI.2 (1996): n. pag. Web. 28 May 2014. 

[6] "Mammal Species of the World : A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference."(Book, 2006) [WorldCat.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.

[7] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[8] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[9] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

[10] "Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking." Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[11] "Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[12] Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[13] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.

[14] Plessis, Susa Du, and Jan Strydom. "Chapter 7." The Right to Read :Beating Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities. N.p.: n.p., 2000. N. pag. Print.