Evolution of Thought

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

[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). 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.