On Sep 7, 12:02 am, "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Sep 6, 11:33 pm, "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote:>>> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On Sep 6, 9:49 pm, "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>> You know, when I think of a library branch, I think of all knowledge
>>>>> being divided into branches.
>
>>>>> At the twigs would be the most recently attained facts.
>
>>>>> At the small branches more basic facts,
>
>>>>> At large branches even more basic facts,
>
>>>>> Until you get to the trunk, which provides nourishment for all the
>>>>> rest.
>
>>>>> Supposedly, each fact fits somewhere in the tree.
>
>>>>> At the twigs are the assertions.
>
>>>>> They are proven by more basic assertions.
>
>>>>> Which are proven by still more basic assertions.
>
>>>>> Until you get to the trunk, which supports all the assertions.
>
>>>>> The trunk facts are self proving, and need no further premise.
>
>>>>> So, some facts need no proving, or the trunk could not exist.
>
>>>>> How could we ever encounter such a fact, in this world where
>>>>> there are no absolutes?
>
>>>> It appears that we never needed to evolve that ability because it was
>>>> either to costly in that it would take all the resources of genetic
>>>> assembly of the brain or that knowledge wasn't needed to survive a
>>>> long and healthy life.
>
>>>> The Savanna Principle is a theory about the evolutionary roots of the
>>>> human brain. ...it asserts that the environment that molded the human
>>>> brain through natural selection is drastically different than the
>>>> world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was
>>>> designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of
>>>> societal difficulties, according to the theory. For example, ancestors
>>>> who craved sugary and fatty foods lived longer and were healthier than
>>>> those who didn't, in a time that such things were relatively scarce.
>>>> Today, the abundance of such temptations leads to obesity and heart
>>>> disease.
>
>
>>>> So some offshoot of language, memory and plans for action allowed us
>>>> humans to ask the question at least, sweet.
>
>>> Yes, we don't evolve the ability for absolutes, maybe because perfection
>>> was
>>> always considered unnecessary, since everyone else was imperfect.
>
>> Skills that were molded for surviving in the past may not have
>> required a resolution to more complex problems. I think that the
>> reason we don't have abilities to solve many very complex problem by
>> instinct is that it would have taken to many resources of the genes
>> that direct the assembly of the body and brain.
>
> Sure, maybe we did not evolve the ability to solve complex
> problems in the past, but we are sure in need of evolving them right now,
> with physical resources quickly running out in our world.
If the genes direct the assembly of the parts of the brain which solve
problems, like how many colors we can categorize or how many things we
can hold in short term memory, I think it would take to long to evolve
these abilities to deal with complex problems now unless through gene
manipulation. There are of course other ways to construct solutions to
these problems like computers and whatever they quickly evolve into.
