You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing:
Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
What are these made of and where do they reside?
And which brain are you talking about?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
Some links:
https://hameroff.arizona.edu/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33232193/
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Let me clarify my point.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.