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
Thus, in a population, the set of existent ideas is such that it is the fittest set. — Daniel
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
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
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.What evolutionary advantage do you think a belief in God gives? — Katie2
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
Isn't this true of every notion we have? — Daniel
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
even better, how sure can i be of my self? — Daniel
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
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 — 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? — TheMadFool
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
Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access — TheMadFool
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 is there a limit to the truths you can know? And what determines such limit? — Daniel
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 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
A finite brain will surely have a limit, no? — TheMadFool
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
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
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
constrained — Daniel
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.