It is noteworthy that every evolutionary stage in Nature, both in biological and mental evolution, produces its own mode of life and interaction amongst specimens of any species trying to survive and operate in that mode. And the need for and actualization of a new mode arises when the old mode has exhausted itself and has created crises of a level and dimensions that require nothing less than the evolution of a new mode of life

​

In human beings, as opposed to animals, growing mental processes and developing social culture (which is interactive with the power structure) have been the basis for producing new modes of society or social existence. And also qualitatively advanced capabilities in society. Looking at the human species in present times we find their current mode of life, or more precisely the society and culture of today’s scientific and technological period, to be highly unsatisfactory in terms of both resolving crises and providing shared stability and happiness to individuals in the long run. There is no doubt that the current social order of science and technology has taken the ability of human thinking to a much higher plane than ever before. In fact this is the climax of the evolutionary stages of Man in society. The frontiers of the evolutionary process in man are the advanced products of Science and Technology. By looking at these frontiers we see the progress, achievements, benefits, and potential of science and technology, on the one hand. And on the other, the limits of its knowing and doing. 

​

The society which science and technology has produced involves variations of liberal democracy at best, while the culture of this period is based upon its economic mode whose basic fundamentals are buying, selling, and marketing, not only of material products but humans also.  Today it is clear that this mode of life, which has been with us for almost 60 years, has and is not producing a dynamic harmony in the interactions and interrelationships of human beings, either within themselves or in their social relationships and interactions. Human beings have reached a point where they have exhausted its limits of producing harmony and good order in which satisfaction exceeds dissatisfaction. There is a minimum amount of harmony which is enforced more by laws than by culture as a system. Law has overtaken the role of culture in laying down boundaries and that has not produced much happiness (mental and physical). 

​

This mode has also produced a great deal of lopsidedness on many fronts. For instance, in the material domain there is a range from multibillionaires to the impoverished. Similarly, there is absence of uniformity and huge differences between the so-called Developed countries and developing or undeveloped countries.  The species of Man is the same, and yet in this stage of evolution there are huge differences in the situations of individuals and also different countries. Hence this mode of existence and operation has generated many and new forms of discontentment, dissatisfaction, unhappiness and tensions, which have become a norm today. The above scenario is a typical symptom of the need for further evolution, which means a new design that comes on the agenda of evolution, a new mode, along with qualitatively new capabilities and functions.  Our present mode of life ensued from the previous stage of our mental evolution, which despite being driven increasingly by quality of life was essentially an appendix of biological evolution. Today we need a post-biological evolution in human society, through going beyond the existing capabilities (in terms of knowing and doing) of science and technology and evolving a qualitatively new mode of individual and social existence, which can become the basis of stability and harmony for human beings at large and in all dimensions of their lives.  

 

The hitherto drive and process within living things for discovering a new mode of life 

​

The basic drive for further evolution in all biological beings, including man, has always come from persistent discontentment with the frontiers of their knowing and doing. This discontentment found expression in more thinking and doing, leading to experimentation. It was not a ‘designed’ and ‘conscious’ experimentation, but a continuous process of trying and stretching one’s thinking and doing, which amounted to experimentation. All biological specimens carried out this process through employing their existing faculties and going through a number of permutations and combinations of trials and errors during this process. It was their persistent discontentment or dissatisfaction and Will to change, and discover another platform for their mode of life, which eventually led them to evolve the next evolutionary mode. 

​

A possible question arises at this stage. We note how discontentment and the unconsciously willed experiments with doing have played a critical role in biological evolution. But were they sufficient for producing biological evolution? To put it differently, was it merely a question of exhausting the number of permutations and combinations an animal could make during its experimentation? 

​

In our view there was another factor which in fact played the lead role in this process; the creative potential of the genetic process and its networks. At present we do not have much knowledge of the in-built limits of these processes. They are largely presumed to be a repetitive process, which occasionally produces random changes or mutations of an evolutionary nature. But we would like to think of them as a reservoir of creative potential. So in all probability it was the genetic process and networks’ creative potential coupled with discontentment and Will which would hit upon discovering the next evolutionary form and mode of life.

​

Today we can undertake this process at an intelligent and conscious plane instead of the hitherto random and semi-conscious plane at which it has been happening in the history of living things, starting from animal life onward. Today on the basis of a highly advanced knowledge fund and mental capabilities acquired primarily through science and technology, Man can intelligently figure out, grasp and tap the potential of his own genetic process redesigning itself to produce another post-biological mental form, culture and even biological changes, if the need for them arises. By employing the best of his mental faculties of questioning and reasoning, going beyond the limits of where he has reached with science and technology, he can operationalize the role of his own genetic process in enabling him to move on to the next evolutionary platform and mode of life of his own species, as a part of Nature’s ongoing journey.  

Existing mechanics of evolutionary change at the genetic level; interplay between nonverbal emotive mental responses to environment and the genetic process 

 

In Darwin’s time when genes and the working of the genetic process had not yet been discovered, evolution of new living forms was viewed as a product of certain ‘laws’, which Darwin enumerated as ‘Growth with Reproduction’, Inheritance, ‘Variability’ and ‘Struggle for life’ (Darwin, 1859, pp. 489-90). What followed from these laws was evolution by ‘natural selection’. This was a ‘principle’, as Darwin called it, according to which Nature preserved or selected useful or beneficial (for the individual specimen to better adapt and survive their changed environmental conditions) variations (in the form of physiological characteristics or “deviations of structure”, (Darwin, 1859, p. 101)) existing or arising within the specimens of a species during its struggle for life and rejected or eliminated harmful ones. The preserved or selected ones were inherited by the offspring of those species. And gradual accumulation of these beneficial variations in successive generations of that species would then lead to changes of an evolutionary nature within it, i.e. change its physiological structure to a level where it could eventually be classified as another distinct species. Conversely, the specimens of species (when confronted by changed conditions of life requiring struggle to survive) in which this process would not take place would fail to successfully adapt in their struggle for life and therefore become extinct. This is broadly the theory of ‘evolution by natural selection’ as put together and developed by Darwin. Where the process itself is characterized as a ‘mindless’ and ‘mechanical’ or ‘algorithmic’ process (Dennett, 1995). 

   

This ‘principle’ or general process of evolutionary changes has been interpreted, elaborated, debated, critiqued and challenged on many planes ever since its formal proposition and then acceptance as the core tenet of evolution in living things. The main factor propelling this process has been the new detailed knowledge about the structure and functioning of individual genes, and genetic networks, and how they produce body, brain and mental structures and processes of living forms and also the evolution of new forms. This new and continuously growing knowledge has not only enabled revision of and addition to the original Darwinian concepts, in the form of Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism, but has also become the stepping stone for identifying some other mechanisms and systems of evolutionary changes and their inheritance, beyond natural selection and genetic evolution. These include, evolutionary developmental mechanisms, epigenetic inheritance, memetic evolution, and ‘behavioral’ and ‘symbolic’ inheritance (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). Today many evolutionary biologists are proposing an integration or synthesis of all these phases of evolutionary theory starting from Darwinian natural selection. And they are calling it the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ or EES, in which evolution involves the interaction between a variety of mechanisms and not just natural selection based on random mutations in genes.       

 

Coming to specifically human evolution, theories like Transhumanism and ideas about Higher Consciousness or hybrid of human and artificial intelligence, etc., have been proposed and are being developed.  

 

Without going into the details of our agreements and disagreements with all the above mentioned theories, we would like to propose our own ideas and understanding of the mechanics and mechanism of evolutionary change in general and specifically in post-language human beings. And how this process will unfold in further human evolution.     

 

So far none of the theories of biological and genetic evolution have suggested the involvement of mind or mental processes as a part of any mechanism of evolutionary change. As heretical as this may sound, we would like to propose that genetic evolution is caused, apart from the hitherto known and cited causes, by the emotive responses of the nonverbal mind of a specimen to its changing environment. 

 

In the beginning phase of biological evolution, in earliest living forms the nonverbal mind consisted of little more than mental reflexes. These were used to successfully mediate between the needs of the living form and its environment and ensured its survival. The success of the mental reflex processes enabled the biological body to grow and develop more elaborate functions. The functions grew not only in quantitative but qualitative terms.  This led to the emergence of more needs and motivations. It would be at this point that the reflex mechanism proved to be inadequate, resulting in the growth of the emotive part of the nonverbal mind. And it is while transiting from simple mental reflexes to complex emotive responses that the response system of nonverbal mind grew more complex. We suggest that at that stage in order to cope with more developed emotive responses there emerged a programming capability in the nonverbal mind. 

 

When we reach the stage of programmed nonverbal mental processes, particularly programmed emotive processes, then the genetic process also becomes more complex and dynamic. With rapidly growing and elaborate emotive responses to a changing environment, corresponding changes start to take place in the genes and genetic networks of more developed living organisms. A developing interaction with the environment induces growing changes in the responses of the nonverbal mind, which in turn are conveyed to mental genes. And through that process mental genes then proceed to modify their own mental software.

 

The capability of genes to modify their own software and programming capability did not exist at the stage of reflexes. It was in response to greater increase in internal and external complexity due to the interplay between the developing genetic process, physically and mentally growing organisms and the changing environment, that the nonverbal mind developed the need for reprogramming. And in consequence of that response the mental genes acquired this additional capability of reprogramming or of modifying their own software and programmes. And this then became a regular feature of more advanced species. It became a built-in genetic capability, and an integral part of the relationship between the genes and nonverbal minds of specimens, based upon emotive responses. Where the emotive responses included the needs of survival, but were not limited to them. 

 

If we take a closer look at the emotive responses taking place within the nonverbal mind to the environment, then we will see that all such responses are neither equal and nor limited to just survival needs. There would be all kinds of responses but only the strongest responses which would trigger off the genetic capability of reprogramming, while other passing responses would be ignored. The mechanism of how this reprogramming capability in the gene actually became operational as a response to the emotive responses of the nonverbal mind is something which has not yet been focused upon or inquired into.  But it is important to explore and unravel this mechanism of genetic evolution, which in our view would also be involving non-Darwinian processes.  

 

Non-Darwinian mechanisms and processes involved in hitherto and future human evolution

Although we propose the involvement of nonverbal mental processes in the process of evolutionary change yet we must keep in mind that hitherto evolution did not proceed in terms of mental processes. The categories in which evolution of species à la Darwin has taken place have been biological. Of course mental processes (perceptual processes, data-processing functions, etc.) have meanwhile been growing, especially in human beings during the period of civilization, or the period of advanced verbal language. In us now for a long time biological and mental processes have both been in the cauldron of time in which we see the exhaustion of the potential of earlier evolution, and we have yet to see the beginning of the potential of new evolution, the stage for which is now set.  The driver of this next stage in which this situation has to be resolved is not going to be a biological process. The resolving agent and principle means for the emergence of a new species will not be biology but mental processes. With mental processes coming on the scene and becoming highly developed and dynamic and also increasingly interacting with and influencing the biological processes, the Darwinian route of evolution through struggle of survival no longer remains the only route. We would like to suggest the internal development of new physiological and mental capabilities as another possible route. If new capabilities develop and evolve in a living organism, then it becomes the requirement of those capabilities to change the entire structure of that organism. Those capabilities need a new structure because they cannot fully develop and get fulfilled within the old structure.

 

Similarly, sometimes there may not be development of new and more capabilities but of more knowledge. Where knowledge is not merely the capability of an individual but exists in the form of a fund available to all individuals of a species. And then it may be the case that knowledge has its own logic, i.e. it generates its own compulsions that arise out of the possibilities arising from within itself. This means there might not exist actual means of knowledge production but merely possibilities as the potential of that knowledge fund. And then it is quite possible that in the interest of improvement and betterment, individuals may try to develop the potential of that knowledge, which in turn will probably generate new capabilities, probably generating a crisis of the structure of species. And then it may be the case that the crisis in turn stimulates the need for more knowledge about the change of structure. So this is yet another route to evolution. The focus on these non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution is most relevant in the context of human evolution. In the evolution of Man as a species, we need to look at and focus on these different evolutionary mechanisms or triggers rather than the known Darwinian mechanism. We suggest that the further evolution of Man into a mature human species would not be based upon a crisis of survival but would instead be triggered by the potential of an accumulating knowledge fund and the emergence of new intellectual tools. 

 

The evolutionary stimulus or catalyst for the new evolutionary process will be the mature intellect. But the mature intellect will be a stage, wherein mental processes will begin to develop their own perceptual systems and then cogitative systems based upon those perceptions. This stage is not evolution itself but evolution will flow from it. The concrete evolutionary process would take place when mental processes and mental genes together will change biology. As elaborated elsewhere mental genes also program biology. So as mental processes begin to produce new functions and capabilities then logically and naturally those capabilities will necessarily intervene in the existing biological genes and their software which produces biological structure. Thus this process will also result in the changing of the biological formation of specimens in whom the new evolutionary process becomes operational.

 

To take an example, these new capabilities will be able to make specific changes to the core biological software and programmes existing within human cells (also of animals), which determine all the stages of the biological lifespan of a specimen starting from his birth, growth, till his decay and then culmination or death. These software and programs are not something fixed and can certainly change and be written in different formats, not only in terms of their general broad program for the life process but also in their specifics. Our biological form will remain but it will be a different one, with different software and programmes. And as a consequence of these changes the successor species of Man would be primarily mental and not biological. That is, its core identity will become mental. At present the only name for that species that comes to our mind is ‘human’. But that species will be so different that we will need another name for it.

 

Understanding the emergence of the verbal mind and intellect; interplay and dynamic between the verbal and nonverbal minds in the process of human evolutionary change 

 

In the case of living things an intention is involved in many interactions, whether it is reflex, programmed or thought-out. Intention is very close to that part of nonverbal mind which involves motivation. So here we are looking at those interactions where a subject drives the interaction. But the problem is that an interaction is not limited to the intention. In accordance with the general dialectic in Nature there are many consequences which flow from that interaction. The logic is that the number and the kinds of consequences of that interaction will depend upon the components which have gone into it and their properties, and the nature of interaction itself. So all logical consequences will flow from it and not only those which were intended.

 

Now, all consequences which were not intended are in a sense surplus consequences; surplus to the intention. And are therefore neither observed nor noted, at least in the first instance. The observation or experience of a given interaction is limited to the scope of the intention. Which in fact is not correct since there are other interactions. So two things actually happen. Firstly, the surplus consequences multiply with repeated interactions. Secondly, as these consequences accumulate, the surplus interactions reach a qualitatively new stage where they manifest their own shape, form and function, and the consequences of those functions arising out of the surplus interactions themselves. So when we are dealing with the dialectic of interaction in living things we should be prepared at the beginning of an interactive initiative for unexpected and unforeseen consequences to flow, if not immediately then in course of time.

 

This dialectic is a very important component of the general process of evolution. And as the evolution of living things progresses the role of surplus interactions and their consequences becomes greater. So it would be true to say that evolution of living things arises out of the interaction between the initial motivation and the environment. As a result of this feature both the environment and the subject change. The environmental changes can be called secondary changes. So we find that neither the subject is static nor the environment. And the dynamic of environment is not limited to the factors which existed at the time of the first interaction. But as a result of surplus consequences there arises an additional dynamic in both the environment and the subject, which intensifies the dialectical process, particularly in areas and matters not foreseen or anticipated.

 

It is through this process that developed human beings produced a new department in their mental processes, i.e. the verbal mind. Essentially the verbal mind is a product of the evolution of mental genes but it does not have direct access to the evolutionary capability of reprogramming in mental genes. The access to that capability still remains with the nonverbal mind. Of course the verbal mind did and still influences the working and development of the nonverbal mind. 

 

At the human stage the origins of the verbal mind lie in the nonverbal mind‘s response at a given time to the growing complexity of its own responses, which clearly produced even more complexity in the environment. With the verbal mind an adversarial relationship began between human beings after the discovery of the potential of human labor, quickly following from the discovery of the potential of animal labor. We must remember that our earlier relationship with animals was one of consumption of their proteins and not the use of their labor. And once upon a time we did not even hesitate to use human proteins as well. But when we discovered a far greater use of human beings through their labor then we did not kill them, just as we kept animals for their labor of producing milk, ploughing fields, pulling carts and so on. 

 

As discussed before the emergence of verbal mental processes did not change the basic structure of the nonverbal mind other than enabling it to experience greater satisfaction. During the period of civilization, we witness modern man modifying (under the influence of the verbal mind) his mental programmes and processes to maximize the exploitation of his pleasure opportunities. But at this stage when the verbal processes began to mature there was a major unintended consequence. They did not only enable the nonverbal mind to use the products of animal and human labor and thereby feel more satisfied on its preexisting motivational level, but they also produced the unintended capability of doing intellectual R&D. And this capability did not concern human environment alone but went far beyond the scope of the motivation or response which produced the verbal processes. It was a general capability of doing R&D, which means the entire process of observing, asking questions about all kinds of observations, pursuing those questions, gathering more observations, and then reasoning, and devising different solutions in terms of all possible permutations and combinations, irrespective of the nonverbal mind’s interest. We can also call this capability, the human intellect.  

 

It is noteworthy that animals are never curious about things they are not interested in. But the verbal mind is curious, and that curiosity causes interest. The verbal human being can be curious without having a preexisting interest whereas animals are only interested on the basis of a preexisting motivation arising primarily out of their biological existence. So the verbal mind of developed human being begins to discover interest out of his observations and not from within itself or from his biological existence. And very soon it begins doing R&D upon the human being itself.

 

The surplus dialectic of the verbal mind starts offering new suggestions to the nonverbal mind, of which it was unaware. And these suggestions are about the products of its R&D. So the nonverbal mind experiments with these products and then in accordance with its own dialectic at that stage, makes choices and starts adding them to its list of pleasures. A newly discovered chosen need now becomes a pleasure. So pleasure now becomes a kind of bonus of survival. Thus in developed humans pleasure as a process undergoes an evolutionary change.

 

We need to note an interesting aspect here that the nonverbal mind still has no direct use for the R&D or intellectual capability of the verbal mind. It does not take serious notice of the complex verbal processes despite its interest in their products. So it chooses and adopts some of the offerings of the verbal mind not only as a sense of pleasure but also as a sense of being very intelligent. It feels that it owns the verbal mind. And it is like another product available for consumption. It finds that it can use the labor of verbal mental processes just as it had tamed animals earlier without adopting the verbal methodology. So it recognizes the verbal mind in terms of and due its products, and not its processes. This means that the nonverbal motivation remains at the same evolutionary plane. The only progress is that it now experiences bonuses, i.e., those items whose need it was not aware of and which it did not ask for. And these bonuses are classified as pleasures. So this dynamic interplay between the nonverbal and the verbal mind continues to play out during the period of civilization. 

 

 

Moving towards the new integrated mind and culture through the existing mechanics of interaction between the nonverbal mind and the evolutionary reprogramming capability of mental genes

 

The response system of the nonverbal mind is a very sophisticated and developed mechanism which corresponds to the complexity of its motivational structure. And this response system has access to the evolutionary reprogramming capability of mental genes. Of course, as mentioned earlier, it passes on the stronger responses, which are repetitive and not merely felt or assessed at a given moment.  It can be the case that at the advanced stage of civilization when decay has also set in there emerges a persistent response with respect to passing responses, or what are called fancies. When that happens then a passing fancy becomes a strong response, because there has developed earlier a persistent response to indulge in passing responses. Then we see the emergence and operation of a well-developed culture. In our view culture would be a product of the reprogramming of mental genes by the evolved nonverbal mental processes under the influence of developed verbal processes. Those pleasures which have arisen out of the offerings of surplus verbal processes as bonuses then become the building blocks of culture.

 

Culture really refers to those nonverbal motivations which have historically arisen at this stage of evolution. At that stage the genetic capability of reprogramming becomes very developed. So now we have needs/desires plus culture. And in subsequent generations we see both the genetic and non-genetic modification of culture. With the help of history as a tool we can identify the modifications in mental genes through culture. 

 

We need to again note that even at the stage of culture, nonverbal mind’s emotive processes are still not interested in the R&D process itself. They are not even interested in the random tendencies of the evolving verbal mind which led it to discovering R&D. Where those random tendencies were the surplus dialectic of the interaction which produced the verbal mind. And we can witness how the verbal mind has been and still continues connecting to nonverbal mind. How it keeps offering everything that it has, including reason, logic and facts. But we also know that the nonverbal mind has its own scale by which it chooses; the preexisting motivational structures, which are still at the programmed stage of evolution. This largely remains the case although it now involves the dictates of culture. Of course it does not involve culture as a whole but its dictates to a particular individual. And the cultural dictates are as powerful as the nonverbal mind’s motivational structure has always been. If a developed human being adopts a cultural dictate that leads him to suicide, murder, setting fire to himself or his house, or any other act of destruction he will happily go on to do so. By now his mental genes are reprogrammed, and they have in turn produced a corresponding emotional capability in the nonverbal mind to act upon the new mental programmes.

 

We know that the nonverbal mind’s motivational process has a defined relationship with the environment from a purely personal or subjective standpoint. It does get emotionally interested in the impersonal dimension, for instance, society but in accordance with the evolutionary stage of the culture of its personal interaction with the environment. We must take note that if the nonverbal mind can cultivate through the pursuit of pleasure an emotion of committing suicide then it can and actually does discover interest in society also. When its personal interaction with the environment reaches a stage of emotional development where society became of personal interest to it then it got interested in society. Just as it got interested in the verbal processes for what they could do for it. Thus the apparently impersonal categories are viewed personally via culture. 

 

In the wake of the developed verbal mind during the period of civilization we observe some individuals, typically serious thinkers, discovering and developing an emotional interest and pleasure in rationality or intellectual R&D. Human history is littered with individuals who have been engaging with this intellectual process for a long time. It did not matter to them at what stage and level their intellectual process of R&D was, whether it was prescientific or reached an advanced scientific stage. The issue was that their rational and objective thinking went beyond the areas of interest of their nonverbal minds. In every era such individuals have been offering rationality to others but have not yet succeeded in selling it, on a mass scale and for the long haul. So when we look at this process we are really looking at individuals. And when we look at this process in the context of mental genes and the nonverbal mind, their connection and evolution then we are still looking in the format of the individual dimension.

 

It would be interesting to note how these individuals sold intellectual rationality to themselves beyond the framework of their existing emotive programmes, and how they incorporated it in their own emotional processes. They discovered an emotive value in the relationship between their own selves and what they observed, i.e. macro Nature, in all time and space. They discovered this relationship as a product of their own intellectual R&D. And they not only found pleasure in it but found that it was their primary pleasure and other pleasures were secondary. So here we witness the beginning of a revolution in the emotive process of nonverbal mind. We refer to it as a revolution because, firstly, the emotive process started becoming impersonal and personalizing the relationship with impersonal macro Nature and, secondly, it began to accept rationality as having primary emotive value. So we witness the nonverbal mind starting a process of restructuring its emotive process. 

 

The above process could not produce serious and sustained evolutionary changes in mental genes. There were some changes which produced new mental programmes and functions but it did not become a sustainable process in more specimens. Since those individuals were few and far between hence there was not a large enough genetic sample available for selection and evolution. It is just like if a few hominids had emerged from our shared ancestors with apes, they might not have become the human species. So if we find a hundred thousand such individuals dispersed over a few thousand years and over five continents then it is logical that the main species would remain the earlier version. Because in the majority of specimens their responses to the reprogramming capability of their mental genes remains limited and constrained by the pre-rationality formation of their emotional processes. Their nonverbal minds are happy to use rationality and its products but do not incorporate these into their own emotional processes.

 

As human species the problems we are witnessing today have arisen out of the complexity of our nonverbal emotive processes and the fact that we are still trying to find solutions to these problems within the scope of existing products of intellectual R&D available to us in our existing environment and not in the process of R&D itself. We are emotionally still resisting the R&D process. Its products are of emotive value but not the intellectual R&D process itself. And we will continue to be stuck at this point until we can find a way of producing rationality in a form which will appeal to the emotive processes of people at large as they stand.

 

In the past, serious thinkers could only do this through extending the personalized dimension by producing ideas about rebirth or reincarnation, either in this world or in heaven, etc. The reason being that it was only within that dimension that the nonverbal mind’s emotive processes would operate. Today we can sell these ideas to the emotive programmes of very few specimens, like suicide bombers, etc. who are even fewer than contemporary scientists. 

 

For us the real challenge is to package rationality, and not fictionalize it in a manner that is appealing to our emotive processes. We need to discover how to sell intellectual rationality or the R&D process, to the emotive processes on a basis on which, once they buy it, they will logically restructure themselves just like those few individuals who have traveled that path in history. It is then that they will instruct their mental genes to reprogram and this reprogramming would also be of a qualitatively different kind. It would not just be a programme but a built-in reusable programming capability.

 

After the initiation of this process many other steps will logically follow but that would be another evolutionary plane. Then the nonverbal emotive processes will discover their new needs. One of which might be to go beyond using mental genes. Or using them for generating new forms of mental processes, which can in turn modify and make new mental genes. These would be new more advanced mental processes, with far greater and more intelligent integration of nonverbal (emotional) and verbal (intellectual) mental processes. 

​

Notes

​

i. The entire system of interconnections and interactions between individual genes with their own specific structures and functions. 

​

ii. It is only in human beings that the verbal mind would also have a role in the mechanisms of evolutionary change, although peripherally.  

​

iii. The capability to make mental programmes, which are essentially layers of operating programmes of the various mental functions and processes like the emotional process, temperament, habits, motivations, problem solving, Will, etc. These operate on the basis of already made subjective mental classifications, equations and paradigms in relation to specific external stimuli and with reference to one’s needs.    

​

iv.  We should keep in mind that intellectual R&D existed before Science and was carried out by serious thinkers, philosophers, prophets, poets, mystics, etc. Science itself is a product of that R&D process. 

​

v. Not deliberately and intelligently designed. 

​

​