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

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

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…

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…