Thinking about evolution, it became apparent to me how ridiculously simplistic the concept of kin selection is. Claiming the behaviors of billions of individuals are determined by who they are closely related to doesn't make empirical sense in the context of human society or biology more generally. Got me wondering what the relationship is between cognition and reproduction, is it even possible to succinctly define the issue? More specifically, how do concepts of the animate and inanimate, the unconscious animate and inanimate, and heredity intersect? I'm not sure how accessible the following paragraphs are going to be, but you'll probably get what I mean. Conventional formulations of the theory of evolution are extremely propagandistic. If any of you guys are game for intellectual entertainment, maybe you can lead me towards better ideas.


Science is only beginning to grasp human perception with a combination of neuroscientific, psychological and sociological discovery procedures conjoined to these disciplines' theories of cause and effect, but the evolutionary conditions that gave rise to its modern forms are simple enough to generalize, for the essence of planetary environments has not drastically changed in hundreds of millions of years, excepting a few aberrant events such as the Permian extinction or the demise of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period.

Perception is first and foremost constrained by ecological necessity, the basic demands nature places on organisms as they endeavor to survive in multifarious circumstances wedded to photosynthesis, respiration, nutrition, reproduction and more organic fundamentals, an assortment of features that constitute the continuity of present biology with the distant past, and which have held a primary role in shaping physical and psychological properties of lifeforms.

Existing within this context are the dynamics of sociality buffering congregates of organisms from total subjection to material conditions. Mass action and then coordinated perceiving augmented satisfaction of immediate need, eventually outstripping these demands with population-selected behaviors, which are not, however, necessarily a producer of speciation events. Evolution of both speciating and nonspeciating competition, cooperation and indifference resulted in not only nuanced and predictive mentalities, but also an experience of apparent animacy that rivaled what we call inanimacy as an evolutionary factor in ecosystems.

In common scientific terms, the domains that can be referenced to explain the evolution of perception are natural selection, exacted upon what we presently theorize as material reality, and social selection influencing collectivity, together delineating the bounds of cognitive history and physiology in total.


Seems to me this is a very functionalist perspective, but maybe a structuralist supplement exists, like interaction between brain regions causing incidental and maybe unselected synesthesia.