TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc


This conversation is closed.

Is evolution/religion/everything a self fulfilling prophecy?

What separates us from the rest of species? Recognition of self right? Some will want to argue that there are other species that can recognize self. But then you need to ask well do they recognize self do to our experiments and what we have defined as self recognition or is it innately in them? So is it that we recognize self because of them through evolution or do they recognize self do to us? A bird called the magpie is self aware using the mirror test. It’s easy now to look in a mirror and say yep that’s me, but it’s a million times harder to say that this is just a visual representation of trillions of moving, living, self-replicating entities.

This is the principles that I would like to use in defining self fulfilling prophecy:
Robert Merton's concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy stems from the Thomas theorem, which states that "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."[2] According to Thomas, people react not only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these perceptions. This causes people to have negative viewpoints. Therefore, their behavior is determined in part by their perception and the meaning they ascribe to the situations they are in, rather than by the situations themselves. Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence.

So we are just a bunch of self replicating entities that have evolved in to a self recognizing being. Will history keep repeating its "self"?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 9 2012: In answering Marvin Welby-Solomon's reply to me;

    He claims that Eastern philosophy was to be like God, and the Judeo-Christian tradition is to have a relationship with God. he also says that if Genesis is not literally true, then the actual fall and separation from God never happened.

    This is a closed minded viewpoint. If Genesis is not literally true, it doesn't imply that none of it happened. I don't believe that Adam and Eve are two people, I believe that they represent an entire culture. The fall into sin by one couple, or the fall into sin by an entire culture, is two different levels of the same event. One is simple, the other is a whole lot more complex.

    As to being like God or having a relationship with God, they may not be the same, but they are not all that different either. Jesus is referred to as the son of God. He says that "I and the father are one". He also says that those who believe in him, he would give them the power to become "sons of God". There are implications here for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Putting this in context to the topic, people see the teachings of religion as real, having real consequences. The trouble is that not all people see it the same and act on it, often in irrational or condemning ways. They make their viewpoint real for themselves and try to make it real for everyone else.
    • Nov 11 2012: Yes Roy, couldn't agree with you more. If we take things literally, should we see God as someone who punishes many millions of people because one stole a fruit??
      And how about the difference between Gen. 2:9 and 3:4? Should we accept the fact that this serpent is not only able to talk, but can also move trees?

      This is how Swedenborgians interpret Adam and Eve, it may help to put some sense to it all. Seems to me that the whole Bible is about consequences and nothing else. In fact the ball is so much in our court that Jesus would not even heal a blind man without asking him first if he wanted to be healed.

      We can all go to hell, if we wanted to :) in fact many... oh never mind. Have a good weekend

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.