Assuming the theory of evolution is true, and that it is an organism's genome which serves as the blueprint for each one of its organs, I have reasoned that every idea must also be subjected to natural selection since ideas depend on the brain whose actual shape and function are a consequence of natural selection acting on this organ. — Daniel

This is, broadly speaking, true. But most higher cognitive functions have too much variance to be significantly constrained by evolution. The brain has evolved to be so flexible that it "beat" evolution.

Thus, in a population, the set of existent ideas is such that it is the fittest set. — Daniel

This doesn't actually follow from the theory of evolution. It's just a set that was "good enough".

If this is the case, that the set of thoughts of a population is under natural selection, then I am programmed, by evolution, to have a limited mind, in the sense that my brain will only be able to generate a particular set of ideas whose nature is mainly determined by my brain's actual state which, again, has been molded by natural selection (thing about an arm which has a limited set of movements that it is able to perform). So, for example, it might be the case that God is just an idea that's survived because it confers some kind of reproductive advantage to the person that has it, and so through the passage of time it's become fixed in the population. Another example might be the idea of what is real and what is not, and etc. Do you see the dependancy of our mindset in evolution? — Daniel

Sure. I mean the basic machinery that we operate with (logic and reason, in a borad sense) has, according to our current understanding, been molded by evolution. And in that sense it may very well be the case that the notion of God, or gods, is a result of the specific way in which the brain evolved. Humans do seem to have the tendency to reify categories and look for metaphysical explanations.

Its a very interesting idea that our thoughts have been moulded by evolution. What evolutionary advantage do you think a belief in God gives? Religion gives a sense of community, it also causes conflict. It might be passed down through families, maybe it brings a family closer. Maybe it leads to more altruism. Its puzzling to me how a belief in an invisible creator could have evolved, and it seems to only be in one species.

Seems to me you have re-invented Dawkins' memes - from the Selfish Gene.

And in that sense it may very well be the case that the notion of God, or gods, is a result of the specific way in which the brain evolved. — Echarmion

Isn't this true of every notion we have? And if so, how does this affect our notions of knowledge, Philosophy, Mathematics, etc. I mean, if my ideas, or my potential to imagine, is constricted by evolution, how far can I question the reality of my existence and how confident can i be of my assertions? even better, how sure can i be of my self? Is the self also a notion that arose because it gave an advantage to the organism that posses it? Am I a trait under natural selection? I am sorry if I make no sense, it is just that the idea is kind of hard to express and im too lazy rn to put serious thought into it.

What evolutionary advantage do you think a belief in God gives? — Katie2

Well, for example, let's say if you don't believe in God, you are hunted and killed by some sort of group. Believing in God helps you survive and gives you the chance to reproduce. Eventually, the idea of God stays in the population because of this.
Or the idea of the supernatural may make you stay away from bad things, and thus you have better chance of surviving and reproducing. There are many examples of how an idea may help you pass your genes. It is for sure more complicated than how i am expressing it, but i think it makes sense. I mean, if we are under the effect of natural selection, then everything that comes from us must be also, no?

I had never herd of memes in that context and it is an interesting concept, i gotta give it a read. Another thing that im trying to say is that the amount of knowledge you can acquire is limited both in quantity and in the nature of that knowledge by natural selection. What i mean is that what you are able to learn is constrained by your brain just like what you are able to experience is constrained by your senses. In turn, this things are defined by evolution and so the pool of ideas that exist in today's society is nothing but the product of evolution.

Again, I am sorry guys cause i know im not being very thorough i just wanted to share this.

God is the creation of language. And we trust in language. At the very least, it's the highest pinnacle of intelligent thought. It's something good and true and eternal we cannot help but strive for. All technicalities aside.

But I don't think we can know the meaning of intelligent thought until we're absolutely certain where we are. And without total perspective, we can never be sure.

This is a new idea I just started working on, and it needs lots of refining (and tbh I have not done much research on the topic), so please be patient if it is not explained very well. I just want to hear your opinion about it. I am not very good at keeping long discussions, but I really enjoy reading your opinions, so feel free to comment whatever comes to your mind after reading this.

Assuming the theory of evolution is true, and that it is an organism's genome which serves as the blueprint for each one of its organs, I have reasoned that every idea must also be subjected to natural selection since ideas depend on the brain whose actual shape and function are a consequence of natural selection acting on this organ. Thus, in a population, the set of existent ideas is such that it is the fittest set. If this is the case, that the set of thoughts of a population is under natural selection, then I am programmed, by evolution, to have a limited mind, in the sense that my brain will only be able to generate a particular set of ideas whose nature is mainly determined by my brain's actual state which, again, has been molded by natural selection (thing about an arm which has a limited set of movements that it is able to perform). So, for example, it might be the case that God is just an idea that's survived because it confers some kind of reproductive advantage to the person that has it, and so through the passage of time it's become fixed in the population. Another example might be the idea of what is real and what is not, and etc. Do you see the dependancy of our mindset in evolution? — Daniel

There's a likeness between your theory and Richard Dawkins' memes. Whatever the case, I concur with you insofar as ideas are seen to go through a selection process that has as part of the "selection panel" other ideas, specifically those that are deeply entrenched, their entrenchment serving as evidence for their value in the game of survival that evolution is about.

However, our rational minds throws a spanner in the works by, purportedly, putting truth above all else. Juxtapose what I said in the previous sentence with the provable and thus credible claim that sometimes believing/telling a blatant falsehood maybe more advantageous to survival than the truth. Belief in god, for instance, maybe precisely a kind of falsehood that aids in winning a mate and ensuring a progeny for those who believe. I'm not sure but the takeaway here is there's a new kid on the block - truth and its purveyor - and it seems to put evolutionary concerns in second place as far as human priorities are concerned. In other words, some ideas (rationality) trump evolution.

That said, the history of ideas probably suggests an effort, even if only half-successful, to align our ideas with the evolutionary principle of survival.

Isn't this true of every notion we have? — Daniel

Yes, in the sense that every notion we have is based on the fundamental machinery that evolved. But that machinery has specifically evolved to be flexible, so there is an open (but not unlimited) space for notions.

And if so, how does this affect our notions of knowledge, Philosophy, Mathematics, etc. I mean, if my ideas, or my potential to imagine, is constricted by evolution, how far can I question the reality of my existence and how confident can i be of my assertions? — Daniel

It doesn't really affect our notions, because those notions are already affected. There is no way to tell what a mind with a different structure might think about these questions. So in terms of philosophy, nothing can be gleamed from speculations about evolutionary psychology.

even better, how sure can i be of my self? — Daniel

Well the starting point for that question would be Descartes, I think. Though Descartes smuggled the self into his famous proof, so perhaps the first question is: what do you mean by self?

Is the self also a notion that arose because it gave an advantage to the organism that posses it? Am I a trait under natural selection? — Daniel

Maybe. But it might also just be an accident. In any event, if you are a trait of anything, you're a trait of your thoughts. And those thoughts are not, strictly speaking, natural, so I don't think selection comes into it.

Google, "Evolutionary psychology".

If minds are causally connected to the world, then the dualistic distinctions of "physical vs. non-physical", "internal vs. external" are unnecessary. The mind would be a biological process that is just as susceptible to the process of natural selection as our other biological processes are.

The mental process of learning is akin to the process of natural selection making mistakes, throwing away what doesn't work and keeping what does. In a sense, learning is the process of natural selection shaping the mind to be more in sync with the state of the environment on a much more granular timescale than trying to re-shape the body to adapt to new conditions over larger time scales.

Its our brain and its workings that drives our evolution . Our minds created Gods , to cheat death , to understand what you can not , your subconscious mind protecting you from the harsh reality , we work this way because of how our minds have evolved . Could the notion of God have a say in our evolution ? No , the idea comes from our minds , to help and protect our sanity , if the subconscious mind sees a different way or a different need in order to survive , then it will change the notion . Imagination is something evolution has created to help us survive , I am aware there are a few different theories exactly which evolution step made us more "Intelligent" , the fact that we developed the ability to "imagine" a possible threat , and prepare for it is one of them . But I do not think the notion of God was a evolution step , but a evolution step at work . If that makes sense :)

However, our rational minds throws a spanner in the works by, purportedly, putting truth above all else. Juxtapose what I said in the previous sentence with the provable and thus credible claim that sometimes believing/telling a blatant falsehood maybe more advantageous to survival than the truth. Belief in god, for instance, maybe precisely a kind of falsehood that aids in winning a mate and ensuring a progeny for those who believe. I'm not sure but the takeaway here is there's a new kid on the block - truth and its purveyor - and it seems to put evolutionary concerns in second place as far as human priorities are concerned. In other words, some ideas (rationality) trump evolution.

That said, the history of ideas probably suggests an effort, even if only half-successful, to align our ideas with the evolutionary principle of survival. — TheMadFool

What if it is evolutionary theory - the notion that whatever emerges from the process of natural selection is advantageous to survival - that is misguided? The priority and collective pursuit of truth may be an underlying impetus to the universe, tempered by natural selection as a limitation of available energy, effort and attention.

What if it is evolutionary theory - the notion that whatever emerges from the process of natural selection is advantageous to survival - that is misguided? The priority and collective pursuit of truth may be an underlying impetus to the universe, tempered by natural selection as a limitation of available energy, effort and attention — Possibility

Well, things, ideas included, that don't contribute to the common "good" don't last very long do they? The common "good" that I refer to is that which promotes and sustains what evolution is basically about - survival. Morality, the usual referent of "good", is primarily geared towards a "harmonious" society, which is just another expression for more time to practice the Kama Sutra and whatever ensues thereof - presumably more babies that grow up to be expert Kama Sutra practitioners in their own right.

Aside from the above, truth, knowing it, using it, seems to have a strong positive impact on your lifespan. The more truths you know, the better you are at avoiding danger and getting through the day to see tomorrow's sunrise. This truth-survival nexus has ancient precedents in my opinion - knowledge of fruiting seasons, migratory paths of bison, habits of predators will, on the whole, add to your time in the land of the living. Don't you agree?

Well, things, ideas included, that don't contribute to the common "good" don't last very long do they? The common "good" that I refer to is that which promotes and sustains what evolution is basically about - survival. Morality, the usual referent of "good", is primarily geared towards a "harmonious" society, which is just another expression for more time to practice the Kama Sutra and whatever ensues thereof - presumably more babies that grow up to be expert Kama Sutra practitioners in their own right.

Aside from the above, truth, knowing it, using it, seems to have a strong positive impact on your lifespan. The more truths you know, the better you are at avoiding danger and getting through the day to see tomorrow's sunrise. This truth-survival nexus has ancient precedents in my opinion - knowledge of fruiting seasons, migratory paths of bison, habits of predators will, on the whole, add to your time in the land of the living. Don't you agree? — TheMadFool

That’s kind of like saying those that don’t survive don’t survive. My view is that we’ve got the cart before the horse. It only seems like knowing and using truth serves the pursuit of survival; but it’s the other way around. Avoiding danger and getting through the day serves the overall pursuit of truth. So does a harmonious society. This perception of the common ‘good’ as promoting and sustaining survival ultimately fails on both an individual and ‘species’ level: we don’t survive. Whatever ‘survives’ beyond my existence is not me - rather, it’s the truth about me. That’s the common ‘good’, in my view.

That’s kind of like saying those that don’t survive don’t survive. :brow: My view is that we’ve got the cart before the horse. It only seems like knowing and using truth serves the pursuit of survival; but it’s the other way around. Avoiding danger and getting through the day serves the overall pursuit of truth. So does a harmonious society. This perception of the common ‘good’ as promoting and sustaining survival ultimately fails on both an individual and ‘species’ level: we don’t survive. Whatever ‘survives’ beyond my existence is not me - rather, it’s the truth about me. That’s the common ‘good’, in my view. — Possibility

Let's meet at the halfway point then. Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access - a positive feedback loop that leads to longer, fuller lives and an ever increasing knowledge bank.

All the above given due consideration, I still feel that, considering how knowledge is meaningless without life but the converse is false, it all boils down to survival - truths ultimately enhancing the quality and length of our lives, both as individuals and as a species.

I like this idea. I believe live is the result of the universe trying to understand itself as if to attain complete knowledge is the end and beginning of the universe (I know it sounds very hippy). It could be said that evolution is the increasing acquisition of knowledge (or truth) and that mutations that allow for this to happen become more common in a population, and it makes kind of sense. I think you should work more on that idea.

Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access — TheMadFool

But is there a limit to the truths you can know? And what determines such limit?

Let's meet at the halfway point then. Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access - a positive feedback loop that leads to longer, fuller lives and an ever increasing knowledge bank.

All the above given due consideration, I still feel that, considering how knowledge is meaningless without life but the converse is false, it all boils down to survival - truths ultimately enhancing the quality and length of our lives, both as individuals and as a species. — TheMadFool

But truth isn’t just about the human understanding of information as ‘knowledge’. It’s about information in general, regardless of life. Life without information is false, but information without life is meaningful, and makes up the majority of the truth about our universe. This is what most concerns us about AI - that the truth about our universe is that its existence isn’t contingent upon our survival.

Evolution does not have a goal.

But is there a limit to the truths you can know? And what determines such limit? — Daniel

A finite brain will surely have a limit, no?

But truth isn’t just about the human understanding of information as ‘knowledge’. It’s about information in general, regardless of life. Life without information is false, but information without life is meaningful, and makes up the majority of the truth about our universe. This is what most concerns us about AI - that the truth about our universe is that its existence isn’t contingent upon our survival — Possibility

I would like to remain on topic and consider the truths' relevance to evolution

な

I like this idea. I believe live is the result of the universe trying to understand itself as if to attain complete knowledge is the end and beginning of the universe (I know it sounds very hippy). It could be said that evolution is the increasing acquisition of knowledge (or truth) and that mutations that allow for this to happen become more common in a population, and it makes kind of sense. I think you should work more on that idea. — Daniel

I believe the universe is the result of pure possibility trying to understand itself, manifesting the difference that makes a difference: from the energy, direction and volume of the Big Bang, to the duration, value and meaning of all possible existence.

The ‘idea of God’ represents the development of our collaborative knowledge or ‘truth position’ in relation to pure possibility. Each of us is a possible manifestation - our capacity to ‘know’ or manifest the truth is limited by our awareness, connection and collaboration with all other possible manifestations.

Classical evolutionary theory explains how the success of ‘random’ mutation is limited through natural selection by available energy in relation to movement, size, lifespan, strength, etc. But as @Banno said, evolution doesn’t have a goal. What evolution doesn’t explain is the availability of energy and diversity of the mutations in the first place. They’re simply taken as given.

A finite brain will surely have a limit, no? — TheMadFool

Yes. And what is it that limits it? It'd say it's the force of evolution. If it is evolution, I'd say that then every idea, which is also limited in itself, including the concept of truth, is a product of it. Every concept exists because it can be thought, and thought is a product of evolution.

I have reasoned that every idea must also be subjected to natural selection since ideas depend on the brain whose actual shape and function are a consequence of natural selection acting on this organ. — Daniel

If this is supposed to mean that the ideas, themselves, are passed along through one's genes, then I wouldn't agree. That sounds too much like instinctual behaviour.

Cultures, however, do pass along ideas. Ideas do mutate (I.e., change) over time, and cultures do adopt new ideas. The behavior of individual members within a culture is selected across the lifetime of the individual. The processes work as they do because of our genetic endowment.

then I am programmed, by evolution, to have a limited mind, in the sense that my brain will only be able to generate a particular set of ideas whose nature is mainly determined by my brain's actual state — Daniel

We have been the species homo sapiens for less than 300,000 years. Our brains have not evolved all that much in this relatively short time-span, yet our brains, which adapted for hunting and gathering, for some reason were also evolved to perform differential equations.

If this is supposed to mean that the ideas, themselves, are passed along through one's genes, then I wouldn't agree. That sounds too much like instinctual behaviour. — CeleRate

Not the ideas themselves but the machinery that makes them possible. If the machinery that makes ideas possible is constrained by natural selection, then the ideas that it creates must be constrained by natural selection, too.

The Conscious mind is a conscious representation of evolution ? it was moulded and created by evolution , designed and driven by evolution . It is Conscious (which is pretty unique it would seem ) .
So does this not mean it is a conscious representation of evolution ?

constrained — Daniel

Constrained is an interesting word choice. Nevertheless, the way that this is formulated appears to be a fallacy of division (I.e., if something is true for the whole [the machinery] then it must be true for the parts [the ideas]); which is one reason why I would reach a different conclusion as referenced in my earlier example of going from hunting and gathering to differential equations with essentially the same "machinery".