Philosophers love to worry us that we can't trust our senses or instincts as we can never be sure that what we perceive via our senses is correct. However I’ve never worried about this. If two organisms are competing to survive in the world, then the one that sees reality clearer or has a better understanding of reality, will be naturally selected over the one that doesn’t. If two organisms are looking for food, who will survive? The one with the better eye sight or the one with fuzzy vision of reality? Who is better adapted, the wild cat who avoids humans or the ones who knows humans love feeding cats. Who will get the best mate, the one who knows scare food is easier to find if you work as a team or the one that hunts alone? So I concluded the evolutionary process will always trend towards a clearer understanding of reality. So keep learning and you will find it easier to survive.
Some might say that evolution only provides what is required to survive, and so we cannot be sure our perception is merely adequate and not accurate. I cannot see ultra violet light because I do not need to, where as bees have evolved with flowers so have the eyes to see UV. But this merely adequate view comes from taking a static view of the world and does not consider the dynamics of the evolutionary process. Mutations always occur that may give a lucky individual an advantage over others of the same species making it easier to live and reproduce. How else could the eye evolve? Also the environment changes, and the organism that recognizes the change and adapts first, is less likely to be deselected.
Scientists have been telling us that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a key factor that determines the temperature of our planet. They also have shown that levels today are increasing at an alarming rate and because we keep dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, will continue to do so. Will the majority of us see this reality and change our ways, or will we choose to ignore the new clearer understanding of reality? If we ignore it, will we be better adapted to our environment or will natural selection kick in and we will be naturally deselected? The future of our species and many others, depends on it.
Unlimited associative learning is discussed in the book “The Evolution
of the Sensitive Soul” by Simona Ginsburg and Eva Jablonka. Here,
they propose that the brain works by taking the inputs (facts) from the
senses and then skillfully linking them together (or disregarding
irrelevant ones) to come up with a clearer understanding of reality ie
it learns and so updates its internal model of the world, increasing
it’s understanding of reality.
Ginsburg and Jablonka’s ideas about the brain demystifies what consciousness is.
They propose that the brain works by having an internal model of the world (reality) which is constantly updated by unlimited associative learning. This makes sense to me. For example when I’m out bird spotting with my partner, and she cries out “look at that bird” and points, at first I can’t see what she is seeing even though I’m looking in the correct location. Then suddenly I can see it and from then on the bird is obvious. Is this because my model of the world initially has no bird in it, but then gets updated so I can see the bird. If I was a hunter, I would make sure I went with my partner as she would help increase the catch. Hopefully she would want to go with me as I can throw straight and get us back home with out getting lost!! As we would be both better off when working together, social team working arises and persists.
Sub topic - Driver-less cars
This internal model of the world may also explains why driver-less cars are proving so hard to develop. Human drivers just have to watch out for the exceptions to the anticipated reality of the road ahead and have a vast unlimited data base of previous knowledge to associate with sensory updates.
Can driverless cars deal with every situation that could possibly arise on the road, including totally new situations? Humans can do this relatively easily, because they only have to update their internal model of the road ahead with the new exceptions, ie we anticipate the future and use a lower routine level of the brain system until something extraordinary occurs. (this explains why when making a (now illegal) phone call whilst driving, you wouldn‘t be able to remember what had happened on the road for the duration of the call. (don’t try this its dangerous = if something totally unexpected happens you need to react quickly by having all your senses focused on the road) I don‘t know how driverless cars are programmed but I suspect they work by continually scanning and interpreting every piece of data in an equally similar way, which is very inefficient.
I wouldn’t get in a driverless car. However, I would travel on a driverless train. The environment for the train is a lot simpler and easier to manage. They wouldn‘t go on strike either.
