• Enrique
    842
    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.
  • fresco
    577
    "Kin selection" appears to endorse the biological fact that existence of individuals are subvervient to group gene transmission mechanisms. What we call 'cognition' is defined by some biologists (Maturana et al) as 'the general life process' and in that sense there is coherence between the concepts.

    Beyond that possible linkage, speculation tends towards 'word salad'.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    I agree with fresco concerning the ‘word salad’. Often it is easy to take this as an insult, but please don’t. Just condense it down a little, leave it alone to fester, and then come back afresh and rewrite.

    The best thing about letting such ideas loose is being able to see what you think more clearly and where your thoughts don’t aline with your words properly.
  • Enrique
    842


    Which aspect of what I said made the least sense to you? lol
  • alcontali
    1.3k
    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.Enrique

    It actually does make a lot of sense to seek to collaborate closely with close relatives. It can successfully protect the individual from an otherwise hostile environment. It is also a strong barrier against allowing artificial structures such as government and corporations to gain too much power.

    In fact, it is their strong, local social structure that has caused the spectacular failure of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, we cannot say that strong kinship does not work, because we can see good examples of where it clearly has.
  • Qwex
    366
    I bare similar traits to my Mother and Father, here are two images which prove that.

    dgHvxRf.jpg
    ReU5QAY.jpg

    I can make facial expressions that are like my Mother or Father, and other expressions, but I'm always limited by their paired genetics.

    I act like my Father when I'm mad - this is automatic.

    This truth has led me to disagree with the OP.

    It's likely I do behave a lot like my family, albeit, with a lot of uniqueness.

    I'm neither my Mother or Father, I'm both (dare I say 'and more?').
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.