Evolution of Thought

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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). 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). 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.