GENIUS FORUMS

Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes. One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement. Lower consciousness itself requires less calories, but there are also flow on effects. A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

Also, a lesser conscious person, and one that becomes even less conscious under threats, experiences lower heartrate, breathrate, muscular tension, adrenaline, etc, and hence has lower energy consumption. As an example of this, i recall an incident where i accidentally scared a woman at night time, and she became so unconscious she fell over on the spot. Wouldn't have been much good if i was a predator like a lion, though.

I think animals faint or 'play possum' when they're frightened.

Apparently the blood volume has to be low first, and the body hot so that veins dilate. Then the adrenal response (fear reaction) kicks the heart into pumping faster. But not enough blood is pumped to the brain, so they conk out.

I wouldn't call this sort of unconsciousness an evolutionary advantage. Though if the animal is well-camoflaged, it would be ok.

Nor is the other sort of unconsciousness (as used on the forum) an evolutionary advantage, either. The human species is probably going to become extinct because of it, and drag a lot of other species along with it.

Kelly Jones wrote:Apparently the blood volume has to be low first, and the body hot so that veins dilate. Then the adrenal response (fear reaction) kicks the heart into pumping faster. But not enough blood is pumped to the brain, so they conk out.

I wouldn't call this sort of unconsciousness an evolutionary advantage. Though if the animal is well-camoflaged, it would be ok.

I think there is conflict in the female because it is a fundamental nature of her psychology to remain near mindless and stress free, not only to reduce energy consumption, but to relate to children, and play her role for her male partner, who requires her to tone down his mental stresses after, for example, hunting down a woolly mammoth, or the like. If he presents her with a stress, it needs to blow over her. If it affected her, the dynamic between them could spiral downwards, with both of them compounding each others stress.

I wonder if this need to become less conscious in the face of stress is greater than the need to respond to dangerous circumstances.

I have studied numerous women under stress and have seen greater unconsciousness in many if not most scenarios, most of which occurred over a period of minutes, they weren't just an immediate issue like your explanation.

Rhett wrote:Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes. One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement.

Evolution is generally viewed as favouring that which successfully reproduces. Lower energy consumption is not necessarily of any benefit for that task.

Lower consciousness itself requires less calories,

How do you know that?

but there are also flow on effects. A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

Physical activity can consume far more energy than mental activity. A mindless brawl consumes more energy than sitting around pondering the nature of existence.

.





Rhett - Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes.

-tomas-
Childbirth being one of them. Having helped deliver (and snip umbilical cords of) a couple of our children opened my eyes to the unconscious realms of women. Hashish makes it go a bit smoother for the mother-to-be. Nipple stimulation to open up the woman (down there) is another plus.




-Rhett-
One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement.

-tomas-
Agreed.




-Rhett-
Lower consciousness itself requires less calories, but there are also flow on effects.




-tomas-
I've seen a woman eat three bags of chips, a container of dip in about 30 minutes flat. The pregnant woman is obviously not selecting the best caloric food choices out there, but the "modern diet" is but a shell of 100 years ago, in the USA anyways.

When my mother was pregnant with me (we lived on a ranch/farm setting), her food of choice was stewed tomatoes. After one of her middle-of-the-night food frenzies of 7th month pregnancy, she up-chucked on my dad - he never ate stewed tomatoes after that incident.




-Rhett-
A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

-tomas-
We do our mandatory one-hour-walk each and every day. No matter in lightning storm, blizzard, or 110 degree heat.

I give her the 20-minute "listen" everyday that she requires to unwind (let it all hang out) whatever she says is nodded in agreement, (as that keeps her and I on the same wavelength).




-Rhett-
Also, a lesser conscious person, and one that becomes even less conscious under threats, experiences lower heartrate, breathrate, muscular tension, adrenaline, etc, and hence has lower energy consumption.

-tomas-
Bingo!




-Rhett-
As an example of this, i recall an incident where i accidentally scared a woman at night time, and she became so unconscious she fell over on the spot.

-tomas-
Sure, but that can happen to most anyone whereas the asteroid just might plunk your noggin' - when it is gonna happen - whether you prepare for it (don a kevlar helmet) or not. Tho, the men in the white suits or the scary people in blue, with Cracker-Jack badges, should the neighborhood be too dimly-lit.

I've been taken unawared by men when out and about (whether day or night), but the voice of women have never jolted me out of the semi-conscious state (nobody can be 100% aware all the time) so yes, the woman has a protected measured mechanism, borne in her from time immemorial.

I've worked (volunteered) at domestic violence shelters, ride with cops, sheriffs on patrol beats over the some 35-years now, and some of the girls would relate that they "would just pass out" after being gang-raped by men. They had hollered and screamed to no avail till their vocal cords would give out, and Nature would provide them "with a free pass" and go into a physically unconscious state-of-being.

Some boys and men at these various shelters (homeless, group home settings, prisons, jails, juvenile) have related the same sort of defensive mechanisms no matter how big and strong they were, when they were initially being seized-upon against their will.




-Rhett-
Wouldn't have been much good if i was a predator like a lion, though.

-tomas-
Depends whether the (male?) lion was looking to increase the size of his pride, or eliminate the inferiors.




.

Brad's post suggests the human brain is hijacked by some parasitic idea, a meme, that tells it to shut down for the meme's own purposes. That is, the meme can successfully get the human can behave in suicidal ways. E.g. like the memes "truth" and "freedom". Well what is the meme? The only one I can think of, is that the meme is safety (happiness). Meaning, the safety meme preserves itself when a terrible situation can't be consciously inescaped, by pure evasion of the situation. An extreme instance of 'ignorance is bliss'.

Memetics is a good explanation, but I think it's only half the explanation. It explains the feminine, or more animal reaction, but not the masculine, or more intellectual reaction, that doesn't fall prey to that meme.

I think consciousness is such a highly organised, and energy-demanding state, that it is unstable. It is much harder to sustain than, for instance, empty space, inanimate rocks, gases, and so forth. It is volatile. So it's easy for mistakes to happen, and for consciousness to conk out. For consciousnesses to manage to remain self-organised in demanding situations is very unusual; the demands are very high on Nature. That's the first point: consciousness is energy-intensive. It's easier for mistakes to happen than for wisdom to arise, generally speaking.

The second point is to do with the sexes. A species that has two sexes (that is animalistic) would not last long if both sexes were equally conscious: the females would be much harder to catch and dominate. So both males and females are carriers of the safety meme; the males use it to frighten or overwhelm the females into submission; this makes mating easier.

Obviously, it's a survival advantage for a species to deal consciously with predators or life-threatening situations. But the demand on Nature to 'squander' so much energy is very high. Sexed roles is more energy-efficient. Instead of having every member of a species equally highly-organised, a portion of them can be active defenders, while the others are doing something else (or are conked out).

So really, evolution is favouring consciousness, but allowing unconsciousness, in the same way that sleep is favoured.

Jason wrote:R: Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes. One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement.

J: Evolution is generally viewed as favouring that which successfully reproduces. Lower energy consumption is not necessarily of any benefit for that task.

I agree, but that doesn't negate my point.

R: Lower consciousness itself requires less calories,

J: How do you know that?

A good hunch based on observation, other scientific information, analysis.

R: but there are also flow on effects. A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

J: Physical activity can consume far more energy than mental activity. A mindless brawl consumes more energy than sitting around pondering the nature of existence.

I was actually thinking about physical activities that cause mental stimulation, but it also applies to, for example, playing a video game, compared to something passive and less energy consuming like listening to music.

Tomas wrote: -Rhett-
As an example of this, i recall an incident where i accidentally scared a woman at night time, and she became so unconscious she fell over on the spot.

-tomas-
. . . I've been taken unawared by men when out and about (whether day or night), but the voice of women have never jolted me out of the semi-conscious state (nobody can be 100% aware all the time) so yes, the woman has a protected measured mechanism, borne in her from time immemorial.

I've worked (volunteered) at domestic violence shelters, ride with cops, sheriffs on patrol beats over the some 35-years now, and some of the girls would relate that they "would just pass out" after being gang-raped by men. They had hollered and screamed to no avail till their vocal cords would give out, and Nature would provide them "with a free pass" and go into a physically unconscious state-of-being.

Some boys and men at these various shelters (homeless, group home settings, prisons, jails, juvenile) have related the same sort of defensive mechanisms no matter how big and strong they were, when they were initially being seized-upon against their will.

Looking at just this bit of your response, i have also seen males lose consciousness under threat, but generally to a lesser extent and much less often than women. I think there are more than just genetic factors, individual psychological factors like general levels of power and success in life would also play a role. Someone that is often unsuccessful is probably more likely to submit to threats because they predict they won't win, compared to someone that wins a lot and has positive predictions.

Kelly Jones wrote:The second point is to do with the sexes. A species that has two sexes (that is animalistic) would not last long if both sexes were equally conscious: the females would be much harder to catch and dominate. So both males and females are carriers of the safety meme; the males use it to frighten or overwhelm the females into submission; this makes mating easier.

I don't think there would be a mating problem if both sexes were equally conscious, even in barbaric scenarios. The women want the sex too, it's just they hold back and force the male to be the active agent. They hold back and make it hard to get because they want to bargain with it, they want to get much more for sex than just pleasure. It can be seen as a sad state that women trade on such a base thing, placing high pressure on something very basic and intrinsic to the male nature, and indeed most living nature. But given their low capacity's, it's unsurprising they are motivated in this direction.

You could say that more conscious females would be capable of bargaining harder, but only so much can be extracted from the male, and there might be an outbreak of rape instead, so they would have to moderate. That being said more pressure could have forced even more development of the male, with further increases in consciousness, although the more conscious females would have acted more against the men becoming wise.

So really, evolution is favouring consciousness, but allowing unconsciousness, in the same way that sleep is favoured.

I don't see any difference between "favouring" and "allowing" something.

.



-Rhett-
Looking at just this bit of your response, i have also seen males lose consciousness under threat, but generally to a lesser extent and much less often than women.

-tomas-
Perhaps you live in areas of Oz that are considered "safe" as opposed to the slums of Canberra, Brisbane etc. or, around the Aborigines 'specially the ones that may have an axe to grind with whitey.

I'd just about gotten jumped by a group of women at a homeless shelter, if not for their queen matriarch, I had been, up to then, dead meat and ready for the dumpster out back. In that case, losing (physical?) consciousness would've been a godsend.

But just walking the streets, try "to be" aware as possible, but it's those footsteps in sneakers (the rouge sleuth) that has v-i-o-l-e-n-c-e and nothing else on its mind.




-Rhett-
I think there are more than just genetic factors, individual psychological factors like general levels of power and success in life would also play a role.

-tomas-
At 6' - I'm not an overpowering brute - tho physically in shape, have a quick wit about me and a gift to diffuse the powerpeople that most usually, and can win over to a "general agreement" to let (allow) the wolves in sheeps clothing, stay where they reside.

Power and success go hand-in-hand with the need to keep the mind-clutter from overwhelming the inner peace that the enlightened (illumined) strive for in every part and parcel of this wonderful, physical (matterless) world we find each and every day rising from bed with the goal being more growth.




-Rhett-
Someone that is often unsuccessful is probably more likely to submit to threats because they predict they won't win, compared to someone that wins a lot and has positive predictions.

-tomas-
And sometimes better to plot-and-plan for another day - don't get mad - get even :-|

Should even not suffice - push on ahead.



.

Tomas wrote: -Rhett-
Looking at just this bit of your response, i have also seen males lose consciousness under threat, but generally to a lesser extent and much less often than women.

-tomas-
Perhaps you live in areas of Oz that are considered "safe" as opposed to the slums of Canberra, Brisbane etc. or, around the Aborigines 'specially the ones that may have an axe to grind with whitey.

I'd just about gotten jumped by a group of women at a homeless shelter, if not for their queen matriarch, I had been, up to then, dead meat and ready for the dumpster out back. In that case, losing (physical?) consciousness would've been a godsend.

But just walking the streets, try "to be" aware as possible, but it's those footsteps in sneakers (the rouge sleuth) that has v-i-o-l-e-n-c-e and nothing else on its mind.

Well, i've never said or implied that women aren't violent, the opposite, really.

[quote="Rhett"][quote="Tomas"]
-Rhett-
Looking at just this bit of your response, i have also seen males lose consciousness under threat, but generally to a lesser extent and much less often than women.

-tomas-
...I'd just about gotten jumped by a group of women at a homeless shelter, if not for their queen matriarch, I had been, up to then, dead meat and ready for the dumpster out back. In that case, losing (physical?) consciousness would've been a godsend.

..............


Sorry, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough!

Girls/women/grandma-types say I'm a handsome man..

These homeless girls were gonna jump my bones, and fawk the daylights outta me. I would've been so dead tired (and at my age) after the ordeal I'd been happy/ready to be tossed in the dumpster :-\

Had I been a single guy (or an adulterer in my heart), just might've jumped back at the wonderful opportunity.

The cops know - The queen matriarch was/is running a prostitution ring outta the shelter. Dang, that queen sure run a decent group of girls, ages 14 to 25 or so.

They are saving up money to get off the streets and buy a house/rent in a more-upscale neighborhood. Can't blame them as these girls come from deadbeat dads/moms .. pretty much discarded human trash.

I volunteer time/money to make a small difference in the lives of the homeless .. comes from growing up next to Three Affliated Tribes Indian Reservation (Mandan, Hidista, Arikara) in North Dakota. The stark contrast between the Rez and a farm. One has electricity and plumbing, the other has no running water much less an indoor toilet or electricity.

In the USA, half the homeless are under age six.




.

My point was just exploring the earlier history of the evolution of consciousness, ie. between animals. It wasn't about people behaving wisely.

David made a point a while back that sticks in my mind. I will explore it a bit here, because it has a lot to say to your point about sex used as a bargaining weapon.

It's a bit of a mini essay.

David's point:
The point is about the psychology of the human species, were biological females no longer around. He speculated that some men would be more feminine than the most feminine woman are now; some men would be more masculine than the most masculine men are now. This is interesting to think about, given that the arisal of women is something many of us hope will stop happening.

New genders a slight mutation on the old
People (meaning, men, but that literally means people in this picture) won't automatically be enlightened: there will still be two general genders, with the ego-interplay of domination and submission. The genders will be mostly psychological, but can still be identified physically. The new female gender will be childish in features, with a self-effacing, passive psychology. The new male gender will be adultish, with a tougher, dominating manner. Boys will orient to a gender based on the mannerisms, so the Oedipus complex will continue (some effeminate boys carrying within them the desire for an omniscient, omnipotent father; some masculine boys carrying within them the desire for a youthful, sexy, adoring, active lover who does everything for them - but it all depends on how much social hype there is over puberty and gender).

But despite the continuation of woman psychologically, it will be a new form, less unconscious than it is now. The childish babyish men will have a sense of humour, at least.

Gender politics
Getting back to the sex as a bargaining weapon. Whether or not men use penises to pass on their genes (they might have some other technology), the idea of sex politics will still raise its head. One gender type will learn techniques to manipulate the other type, purely based on psychology. Not everyone will do this, so as you say - if people are conscious, they won't behave like this.

Evolution favouring consciousness - but only in this new species
The part that most interests me is the fact that this new species of humankind will destroy itself very quickly, if a significant number aren't enlightened.

Men have an aggressive, go-getter psychology. Their attitudes and motivations are about achieving some goal, fixing some problem, and doing something big. This means, there will be a lot of belligerence, posturing, violence, and so forth. Most of us know that men currently use women for protection from other men; women are wet-blankets, slowness, dullness, emotionalism and all the stuff that explodes when there is any conflict. Without this damping effect, conflict will escalate. Also, being highly imaginative and physically powerful, the criminal element in society will be much greater than it is. It is possible that we will return to the corporal and capital systems of punishment for a while, to relearn cooperation. So the interesting part of all this, is that enlightenment will really be an evolutionary necessity.

The only way that this massive tendency to self-destruction and maloperation can be checked is through enlightenment, which dissolves anger, violence, and the domination/submission dynamic.

Tomas wrote: These homeless girls were gonna jump my bones, and fawk the daylights outta me. I would've been so dead tired (and at my age) after the ordeal I'd been happy/ready to be tossed in the dumpster :-\

Had I been a single guy (or an adulterer in my heart), just might've jumped back at the wonderful opportunity.

The cops know - The queen matriarch was/is running a prostitution ring outta the shelter. Dang, that queen sure run a decent group of girls, ages 14 to 25 or so.

They are saving up money to get off the streets and buy a house/rent in a more-upscale neighborhood. Can't blame them as these girls come from deadbeat dads/moms .. pretty much discarded human trash.

Are you sure they weren't just after your wallet? Or were they going to jump you then take your wallet? If so i wonder how they would have reacted if you asked if you could please put a condom on first? I figure in the rape of a male only one would normally get the chance of being fulfilled, although they could ask for all sorts of other pleasures.

In the USA, half the homeless are under age six.

If true that's extremely unfortunate.

Rhett wrote:

In the USA, half the homeless are under age six.

If true that's extremely unfortunate.

It sounds unlikely to me. The official government numbers from ich.gov:

Among the findings noted by the researchers using HUD's new year-long sample of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data were characteristics of sheltered homeless:

* Geographic: 77% are in central cities and 23% are in suburban and rural areas.
* Household Type: 70% are individuals and 30% are persons in families with children.
* Race: 64% percent are members of minorities.
* Gender: 69% of all sheltered homeless individuals are men.
* Age: 55% of all homeless individuals are 31-to-50 years old.
* Veteran Status: 13% of all sheltered homeless adults are veterans.

So if there are that many homeless six year olds, there must be a lot of homeless families with a whole lot of kids.
The "under six" number on websites seems to be attributed to the National Coalition for the Homeless. But the closest things I could find on the NCH website:

Deep poverty and housing instability are especially harmful during the earliest years of childhood; alarmingly, it is estimated that almost half of children in shelter are under the age of five (Homes for the Homeless, 1998).

The number of the homeless youth is estimated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the US Department of Justice. Their most recent study, published in 2002, reported there are an estimated 1,682,900 homeless and runaway youth. This number is equally divided among males and females, and the majority of them are between the ages of 15 and 17 (Molino, 2007).

In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these
children were under the age of five (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty,
2004). This same study found that unaccompanied minors comprised 5% of the urban homeless
population. However, in other cities and especially in rural areas, the numbers of children
experiencing homelessness are much higher. According to the National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty, in 2004, 25% of homeless were ages 25 to 34; the same study found
percentages of homeless persons aged 55 to 64 at 6%.

Rhett wrote:Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes. One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement. Lower consciousness itself requires less calories, but there are also flow on effects. A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

The lower conscious animals have to work very hard for survival, and therefore need more calories. Our higher consciousness gave us technologies to do hard work for us, giving us low-calorie consumption leisure time, in turn giving us even more consciousness. That's my take.

skipair wrote:

Rhett wrote:Unconsciousness in the female has been favoured by evolution to serve a number of purposes. One of those is to reduce energy consumption and hence food requirement. Lower consciousness itself requires less calories, but there are also flow on effects. A less conscious person is less inclined to engage in activities for the sake of mental stimulation, hence reducing energy consumption.

The lower conscious animals have to work very hard for survival, and therefore need more calories. Our higher consciousness gave us technologies to do hard work for us, giving us low-calorie consumption leisure time, in turn giving us even more consciousness. That's my take.

So you think evolution has favoured more consciousness in humans in order to reduce energy consumption? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps more accurately would be to say that more consciousness allows us to better meet our energy needs, and possibly a consequence of that is leisure and a lesser need for energy.

In some sense you're talking about males. Males have higher consciousness and develop technologies.

AIthough, to challenge your assertion, imagine a doe eating some grass, seems like less work than the frenzy of some offices, never mind say a builder building 45 houses in his lifetime. Sure a predator might come along, but that's not too often.

Also, humans require a very rich diet, partly to maintain their brain, and partly to maximise their physical capabilities by not requiring a large digestive system. To conserve energy where possible is more important when you need a rich diet. Energy can be conserved in females much more than males, due to the practice of males doing the hunting, building, problem solving, etc.

Unconscious people waste a lot of energy by not doing things efficiently. They waste a lot of energy doing things that don't need doing, or are directly sabotaging or vandalising other things that they do or others do. They also expend a lot of energy fighting phantoms, and by having emotions. Anxiety and depression often lead to great fatigue, because the body is putting in a lot of work to sabotage its thoughts.

A wise person uses less calories to achieve more, perhaps much more, than one who isn't wise.

syntax...gotta love it

David's point:
The point is about the psychology of the human species, were biological females no longer around. He speculated that some men would be more feminine than the most feminine woman are now; some men would be more masculine than the most masculine men are now. This is interesting to think about, given that the arisal of women is something many of us hope will stop happening.

This is partly why gay men exist today - they have already evolved to be a proportion of the population. Homosexuality evolved when we were primates. With the strongest males gaining multiple females, this leaves males without females partners or status. To attack the lead males to gain females is too risky, and the primate brain was adequate to assess the risk, so less powerful males sought status, protection and sexual release from other less masculine males.

Ps - I think Rhetts opening argument is a complete dud. Supposedly women are more emotional, which would use more calories when not under threat. I think "unconsiousness under threat" would have something to do with a massive incease in blood flow to the brain that somehow causes pressure or errant blood flows. There may also have been a time in our prior animal lives, where within a herd under attack non-activity was more successful to a hopelessly trapped indiividual animal than activity - cant think of an example but it may be related to this tactic being more successful when feeding at night. Perhaps the brain has even developed a capacity to foretell immense pain, and like the affect of adrenalin temporarilly shuts the thinking brain down.

In any case, you can't really say that two men involved in a life and death brawl are that conscious, they are only more conscious in an awareness sense, not an active frontal lobe thinking sense.

Jamesh wrote:

David's point:
The point is about the psychology of the human species, were biological females no longer around. He speculated that some men would be more feminine than the most feminine woman are now; some men would be more masculine than the most masculine men are now. This is interesting to think about, given that the arisal of women is something many of us hope will stop happening.

This is partly why gay men exist today - they have already evolved to be a proportion of the population. Homosexuality evolved when we were primates. With the strongest males gaining multiple females, this leaves males without females partners or status. To attack the lead males to gain females is too risky, and the primate brain was adequate to assess the risk, so less powerful males sought status, protection and sexual release from other less masculine males.

Yes, homosexuals reinforce the heterosexual pair-bond (the sex plus child-rearing functions). It's like the prostitute phenomenon, as you noted earlier. But the above 'new' genders aren't homosexual in that way, because they are two different genders (albeit the same sex). There would probably be an alternative to homosexuality, which we might call homogenders, with a very weak expression among the most masculine (they wouldn't need that sort of bonding, so it would be more like the relationship between anarchists), and a strong expression among the least.

Ps - I think Rhetts opening argument is a complete dud.

The argument can go two ways. If by 'evolution', Rhett means, survival, then inanimate matter, with total unconsciousness, is certainly the favourite. I'm not sure if energy can 'use' calories, since it is calories, but it is certainly very long-lasting. But if he means the ability to deal successfully with threats, by a highly organised thing, then we're looking at consciousness over the long-term, rather than one aspect of survival (energy efficiency).

For instance, an elderly person with dementia lying in a hospital bed for twenty years is apparently burning very little energy, and surviving quite well thanks, but in fact is burning a lot of energy in the form of all the care necessary to keep it alive. Over the long-term, such levels of consciousness have a low success rate, because they're so demanding.

That's why I tend to look at evolution or consciousness as long-term survival. E.g. of a species. I'd ask how efficiently it manages its needs. I would say that feminine consciousness has a very short life span, relatively speaking, because it is unconscious of cause and effect, and therefore of how to manage its survival. 100,000 years is a relatively short time, if that's how long the human species has been in its present form.

In any case, you can't really say that two men involved in a life and death brawl are that conscious, they are only more conscious in an awareness sense, not an active frontal lobe thinking sense.

Engaging in a highly emotional fight shows feminine consciousness.

Jamesh wrote:Ps - I think Rhetts opening argument is a complete dud. Supposedly women are more emotional, which would use more calories when not under threat.

Even though women's mind's are saturated with emotion, the emotions are flimsy and shallow, they don't have much effect on their body. That's part of the reason why emotions don't bother women much.

Kelly Jones wrote:Unconscious people waste a lot of energy by not doing things efficiently.

Women's lives are familiar and repetitive and simple. They save energy by not having desire's to have a bigger more energy consuming life.

They waste a lot of energy doing things that don't need doing, or are directly sabotaging or vandalising other things that they do or others do.

Evolutionary pressure in the psychological realm, where women occasionally serve to de-stress the male, overrides what you say above.

They also expend a lot of energy fighting phantoms, and by having emotions. Anxiety and depression often lead to great fatigue, because the body is putting in a lot of work to sabotage its thoughts.

Refer my previous post.

A wise person uses less calories to achieve more, perhaps much more, than one who isn't wise.

With regard to those in the deluded paradym, more consciousness causes anxieties to have a deeper effect on the body, causing more energy consumption. A wise person is too different to a woman to be of relevance.

What about looking at evolution in terms of a species?

I.e. the energy efficiency of the life-form that is that species, and its survival?