> 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.
Maybe a big part of evolving right now is just the mind.
