Evolution of Thought

[arahant]

So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[vhawk01]

"False thinking" is a ridiculously loaded phrase. Can you give me an example of what they might mean by false thinking?

Let me try one. Attributing agency to inanimate things, such as lightning, or broken escalators, or the stupid [censored] coffee table that I just stubbed my toe on. This is false thinking, quite obviously, since the lightning is not out to get us. But think about the system that this false thinking is a greater part of. It is generally beneficial to immediately assume agency to things around you, since mistakes of the kind we are talking about cause embarrassment, and the other kind of mistake (ignoring potential agency from, say, a mountain lion) cause death. So, the system is set up to err WAY on the side of caution.

A lot of errors in perception/judgement, so called 'false thinking,' is easily explainable under this paradigm.

However, I don't know exactly what type you are talking about. There are similarly good explanations for why people think the odds of my mother calling me just when I was thinking about her are about the same as the odds of my mother having a psychic connection to me and subtly being able to read my thoughts. And so on.

[Phil153]

Equivalent argument: People should have a dog-like sense of smell, since it would convey huge advantages in avoiding predators, finding food, reading emotions, finding water in dry conditions, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two problems:

1. Just because is beneficial, doesn't mean we would have it. There are a million beneficial traits that humans could have, and don't.

2. Who says that correcting false thinking was a benefit to our ancestors? The selection pressure in ancient tribes would have been on things like virility, strength, size, social abilities, etc. You only have to observe the reproductive success (closing the deal) of stupid 6'2" water polo players vs uber intelligent nerds (Sklansky notwithstanding) to see that the reproductive advantage of intelligence and clear thinking is fairly slim.

[kerowo]

There is a big skeptic who talks about this a bit in "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things." Arguing that basically early dudes were really good at pattern mapping, which helped finding food and spotting predators, however finding patterns also came in handy in seeing Devils in fires, animals in clouds, and other things that aren't really there. Sometimes bad things that don't provide any advantages get carried along with good things that do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a big skeptic who talks about this a bit in "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things." Arguing that basically early dudes were really good at pattern mapping, which helped finding food and spotting predators, however finding patterns also came in handy in seeing Devils in fires, animals in clouds, and other things that aren't really there. Sometimes bad things that don't provide any advantages get carried along with good things that do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine. I'd recommend this book. Its good, not great, but it does have some funny, interesting anecdotes, and provides a little bit of explanation and evidence. He's apparently coming out with a sequel to this sometime soon.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same argument, predators should always succeed in catching their prey, and the prey should always succeed in escaping.

[PairTheBoard]

This looks to me more an argument against creationism than for it. With evolution we expect progress up the scale for traits that give survival advantages and that's what we've seen. Evolution may not be done with us yet. But with Creationism, you might ask why God would create an inferior product as his perfect model.

I wonder if they might be proposing the circular argument as follows. Belief in Evolution is False thinking. Why? Because if Evolution were valid we would not be subject to False Thinking and would therefore know that Evolution is False.

PairTheBoard

[soon2bepro]

phil FTW

Good reply

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
with Creationism, you might ask why God would create an inferior product as his perfect model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Further, there is no reason to expect any sort of perfection through mutation and evolution, because they follow paths of chance. They create new functions out of awkward predecessors. The position of our advanced voicebox makes us especially susceptible to choking to death on food -- a horrible design not shared by any other mammal but chimps. But evolution had to work with the throat/larynx it had, not the entirely separate orifices that would make sense.

Beaver digestion -- another stupid design. Beavers cannot digest wood cellulose without the help of bacteria. The stomach would be the sensible place for such bacteria. However, the place beaver have developed to harbor these specialized bacterium is LATE in the digestive tract, long after processing and absorption. The wood cellulose is broken down AFTER the intestines, the only place where the nutrients can be absorbed. Solution? Beaver eat their own poo. Only on the second time through do they get anything out of it. They distinguish between reused and not used poo. Thanks a lot, God.

The key to proving intelligent design is this: use anything in biology that works well as proof of design, while ignoring everything that works ridiculously.

[aeest400]

The "bad design" issue actually strikes me as a serious problem for creationism, though its not discussed much. I'm pretty sure the female breast if the only "perfect" part of the human.

As far as human brain power, on avg we're about as smart as it takes to build shelter, figure out that crops can grow, harness animals, etc.--pretty much the basics required to maipulate our environment in various ways to reduce selection pressure. (There are, however, a few "geniuses" who can do things like create an alphabet if circumstances dictate.). Indeed, one might say that we evolved to the point where we were smart enough that it was no longer selectively advantageous to possess more intelligence.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
phil FTW

Good reply

[/ QUOTE ]

I am impressed by the excellent points in this thread.

I've gotten this kind of question several times in class and I never thought to use the predator-prey example thylacine did. I'll be using that one next time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The "bad design" issue actually strikes me as a serious problem for creationism, though its not discussed much. I'm pretty sure the female breast if the only "perfect" part of the human.

As far as human brain power, on avg we're about as smart as it takes to build shelter, figure out that crops can grow, harness animals, etc.--pretty much the basics required to maipulate our environment in various ways to reduce selection pressure. (There are, however, a few "geniuses" who can do things like create an alphabet if circumstances dictate.). Indeed, one might say that we evolved to the point where we were smart enough that it was no longer selectively advantageous to possess more intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a damning argument against creationism save for one, omnipotent counter-argument: "God works in mysterious ways."

[kerowo]

What does that even mean?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm browsing around, and find a creationist site that made an interesting (if unintentionally ironic) argument:

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, when I find something weird about any animal, I usually look for the evolutionary answer (yep...that's right guys...I am BIASED). I confess to having a little trouble with this one (in fairness, it's been 2 minutes, and I'm drunk).

Anyone care to expound on the benefits of the persistence of beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same argument, predators should always succeed in catching their prey, and the prey should always succeed in escaping.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple points:
first, I don't take it as an 'argument' for creation/evolution one way or the other, and there is no argument on that anyway...I don't want to get into another retarded creation fight. It's not like it's a close call or something.

I think some of you guys are just being argumentative, too /images/graemlins/smile.gif. The predator/prey example just isn't analagous. Prey ARE well-adapted to get away, and predators ARE well-adapted to catch them, and there are obviously competing interests. There may be competing interests here, too, but it's not immediately apparent to me what they are.

I certainly understand the benefits of pattern recognition and agency attribution, but I what I am ASKING is why are those beliefs so resistant to change.

To Vhawk - I don't know exactly what beliefs would be covered (obviously, the site thinks evolution is one /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), but basically, anything where an individual is holding a belief against substantial evidence. Astrology, creationism, demons, etc...

There seems to be a very strong desire on the part of many people to absolutely refuse to even look at any evidence, and if it is thrown in their face, they ignore it. This applies in all sorts of smaller areas, too. Once I decide Bob is out to get me at work, I tend to hold that idea very firmly. Once I decide that I'm good poker player, I can't let that go until I'm broke. Once I decide I'm ugly or undesirable or stupid I'll start to ignore personal interactions that conflict with my belief.

This tendency to not change one's mind is so obviously there and so strong, that I find it hard to believe it doesn't confer some sort of advantage. It's not a minor point about human psychology, but a HUGE driver of EVERYBODY'S belief systems.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What does that even mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so closed-minded/touched by Satan that you wouldn't understand.

[PairTheBoard]

I was thrown off by your link to a Creationist site. If you didn't want that to muddle the discussion you could have just brought the topic up without the link. But I see what you're getting at now.

I suppose stubbornness in applying a belief that has proved successful in the past is helpful in terms of Persistence. You only have to give a dog scraps from the table once. You can deny him all you want after that, but he will persentently try to achieve the same success again. And his persistence will often pay off.

PairTheBoard

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
what I am ASKING is why are those beliefs so resistant to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's some idle speculation

1. It's necessary to maintain continuity in thought. If we let go of beliefs too quickly, it is hard to finish a task. There is a continuing tension between continuity and innovation -- improving one worsens the other -- so our brains are in between.

2. Rigid beliefs are necessary for organizing thought. We've read how once people have a belief, all subsequent evidence is interpreted to reinforce that belief. Without this system of organization, our thoughts are random and ineffectual at doing anything, and we do not know what to do with new information. It is better to do things wrong sometimes than to not do.

3. Protection from bewilderment. There are so many contending ideas and demands, you have to stick with something, otherwise you flounder.

4. Note that at its simplest, the only purpose of the brain is to time contractions of muscles. (Thank you R. Dawkins.) There is a chasm between the brain and the universe of interaction. It is like operating a Mars rover from Florida. We cannot expect the timing of muscle use to come very close to optimum EV.

4. Why would you expect the brain to work so well? It came from mud.

[arahant]

There ya go...that's a pretty reasonable explanation.
Still seems extreme, but a fair point.

I hope Nielso eventually gets out the truth about 9/11 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[aeest400]

These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have a general impression that learning modalities aren't extremely malleable, and a reasonable success rate is about all we can expect, at least in the short term.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay Gould! Someone talked about something other than Dawkins.

The brain and our behavior are full of spandrels.

And I'm sounding like a broken record but a lot of our behavior is limited by evolutionary constraints. A simple example I've talked about before is our liking of addictive drugs. You can imagine "well, why the hell wouldn't that be selected out?"
Because in order to change that you have to change those reward circuits and about a billion other things. Not only would that be hard to do without compromising fitness (the reward circuitry is incredibly important in this regard) but due to the concerted development of the brain it's incredibly difficult to change a circuit like that without having radical effects on other systems in the brain.

Evolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it gets close to the best compromise between conflicting pressures.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay Gould! Someone talked about something other than Dawkins.

The brain and our behavior are full of spandrels.

And I'm sounding like a broken record but a lot of our behavior is limited by evolutionary constraints. A simple example I've talked about before is our liking of addictive drugs. You can imagine "well, why the hell wouldn't that be selected out?"
Because in order to change that you have to change those reward circuits and about a billion other things. Not only would that be hard to do without compromising fitness (the reward circuitry is incredibly important in this regard) but due to the concerted development of the brain it's incredibly difficult to change a circuit like that without having radical effects on other systems in the brain.

Evolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it gets close to the best compromise between conflicting pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Side note: Just finished Full House, it was really interesting, and gave me some solid, condensed reasoning to understand apparent trends that aren't really trends (drunkard's walk).

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay Gould! Someone talked about something other than Dawkins.

The brain and our behavior are full of spandrels.

And I'm sounding like a broken record but a lot of our behavior is limited by evolutionary constraints. A simple example I've talked about before is our liking of addictive drugs. You can imagine "well, why the hell wouldn't that be selected out?"
Because in order to change that you have to change those reward circuits and about a billion other things. Not only would that be hard to do without compromising fitness (the reward circuitry is incredibly important in this regard) but due to the concerted development of the brain it's incredibly difficult to change a circuit like that without having radical effects on other systems in the brain.

Evolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it gets close to the best compromise between conflicting pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Side note: Just finished Full House, it was really interesting, and gave me some solid, condensed reasoning to understand apparent trends that aren't really trends (drunkard's walk).

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, I just had a conversation that included some stuff about the drunkard's walk an hour ago.

Read Ontogeny and Phylogeny next. Heterochrony is crazy important (and relatively unknown to a lot of evolution enthusiasts)and it's chock-full of interesting stuff about the history and evolution of evolutionary thought.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay Gould! Someone talked about something other than Dawkins.

The brain and our behavior are full of spandrels.

And I'm sounding like a broken record but a lot of our behavior is limited by evolutionary constraints. A simple example I've talked about before is our liking of addictive drugs. You can imagine "well, why the hell wouldn't that be selected out?"
Because in order to change that you have to change those reward circuits and about a billion other things. Not only would that be hard to do without compromising fitness (the reward circuitry is incredibly important in this regard) but due to the concerted development of the brain it's incredibly difficult to change a circuit like that without having radical effects on other systems in the brain.

Evolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it gets close to the best compromise between conflicting pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally fair. I guess I was just asking for folks to expound on what those competing pressures were in this case. The value of persistence is certainly one, but I'm still listening if anyone cares to talk /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are very good potential explanations. Also, as with most evolutionary/biological "phenomena" it is important to consider the possibility that the trait under consideration wasn't selected for but is simply a consequence of other traits (i.e., a spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology))). Thus, lack of belief revision may simply be a consequence of having a general learning system because, say, "initial" impressions must have a larger effect than subsequent impressions due to the general dictates of the system and/or the spectrum of biological possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay Gould! Someone talked about something other than Dawkins.

The brain and our behavior are full of spandrels.

And I'm sounding like a broken record but a lot of our behavior is limited by evolutionary constraints. A simple example I've talked about before is our liking of addictive drugs. You can imagine "well, why the hell wouldn't that be selected out?"
Because in order to change that you have to change those reward circuits and about a billion other things. Not only would that be hard to do without compromising fitness (the reward circuitry is incredibly important in this regard) but due to the concerted development of the brain it's incredibly difficult to change a circuit like that without having radical effects on other systems in the brain.

Evolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it gets close to the best compromise between conflicting pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Side note: Just finished Full House, it was really interesting, and gave me some solid, condensed reasoning to understand apparent trends that aren't really trends (drunkard's walk).

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, I just had a conversation that included some stuff about the drunkard's walk an hour ago.

Read Ontogeny and Phylogeny next. Heterochrony is crazy important (and relatively unknown to a lot of evolution enthusiasts)and it's chock-full of interesting stuff about the history and evolution of evolutionary thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider it on the list.