Skip to main content

Why do we grieve?

It's very important first to understand that evolutionary processes do not have a causative role in all evolved behaviors or traits. Often species responses to various stimuli are simply that responses to either stimuli in presence or absence and not a behavior that has evolutionary causation.

Grief is a perfect example of such a response. It is a reaction to the end of a continuous stream of signals that otherwise would come from an individuals (or items) presence and represents a momentary set of *shocks* at the re-realization at the loss when need presents.

"Need" can be as simple as the desire to talk to a person who is gone or hear their laughter. Unlike the things we surround ourselves with...which we experience sensorially only in a limited band of ways (and thus impress networks in our brain in an equally limited way)

The influence of individuals we've been close to on our brain networks is extensive...especially when those histories go back to childhood...where dense networks of experience touch upon the active presence of those persons not just in our past lives but in our present minds.

Remember how modulation of our mental state is enabled by the controlled release of various neurotransmitters that maintain the stability of our cognitive landscape through the optimal flow of these  brain drugs in order to keep us at balance.

When some one dies we literally have the mental network system thrown out of balance across deep areas of the brain...from autonomics to higher cortical function. Of these people we often have network connections that cross all of our senses from somatosensory to sound to smell to sight to taste...and those often connect to temporally associated events that tie to the personal experience...for example remember the type of perfume some one would wear or remembering the feeling of their hands.

Shakesphere in his genius touched on the core of it when he wrote:

"To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. "

-- Those thousand natural shocks erupt when we lose some one because they reverberate in a dense multidimensional way in all our mind which our brain must subtract if it is to remain balanced in the face of their absense and it does that by remodulating the brain chemicals...forcing us to prune the mind literally of the old state of expectation that was associated with past interaction with that person to a new state in which we are...less often over time...  startled by the sudden realization of their non presence when we think of them. If this subtraction process does not happen the constant shocks can lead to significant build up of stress which could literally kill (and it does quite frequently to those who die from grief complications after the passing of a loved one).

That's the individual side of things but we are now individuals that live in a social structure that also impinges different pressures, for a kin group open mourning (weather the mental grief and detachment process indicated above is real or performed) shows to the individuals in the clan that the individual meant something to the indivuals mourning and to the allows later the group to come together in the common way in which literally they were molded (their mind literally) by the presence of the one departed and allows them to come together to *fill any gaps* that their absense may leave in the survivability of the group. In the past the death of a prominent provider could wreak havoc on an entire groups ability to survive if that person possessed unique skills that the group relied on...mourning enables this rebuilding of a new group dynamic for those roles to be established in the clan so that it can move on.

So here is revealed the true causative drive in my view for grieving...the social import induced as a response to the physiological reaction to loss that individuals must necessarily engage if they are not to die by a thousand continuous shocks.

The hypothesis can be tested by correlation to other species. Contrary to your statements above regarding advance (a term which doesn't make much sense over all evolutionary space because often evolution leads to regression) we should find a correlation between grief and social animals that doesn't exist in non social animals...and indeed a cursory examination of many non social species reveals that they do not mourn. This is not to say that ALL social animals do, many  insects indeed live highly social lives but they are cognitively simple beings compared to the complex landscape of sensory experience that weaves together the cognitive states of higher mammals and birds that are social.

So I posit that there is a set of feedback systems at work that feed social evolutionary pressures into expressed behavior depending on the cognitive sensory complexity of the animals in question. The necessary neuro chemical complexity that gives us the greater cognitive dynamism and consciousness also gives us the burden of needing to unbind the deep networks being formed across our sensory landscape with individuals that is continuously Shepparded in the presence of the individuals...once they are gone the energy required to maintain that system in the face of their absence and the shocks that continuously testify to that fact can lead to life ending to cut the bond we grieve internally (rebalance of neurotransmitters around the kernels of experience that were associated with that departed)...and to acknowledge and strengthen the social web in which we  live we grieve externally.

So I assert that Absent social expression in a species one should find that mourning does not present...this is a falsifiable hypothesis that I am interested in testing.

I've not read the literature on theories for the purpose of grief any with information that may illuminate this subject may provide such in the comments below.


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …