Why were we created with two eyes? It could easily be an arbitrary result of evolution. If that is the case, why did evolution choose to give us this specific perspective of reality? Why not give us one eye to see the world in just 2 dimensions? What if additional evolutionary features could have let us view reality from more dimensions? What if that is what is going to happen over time?
After all, that is what evolution has done up to this point: provide an increased awareness of the physical reality as life has advanced. Our visual senses (our optics) independently of the brain only capture the 2D perspective of the physical world. It is our brain that allows us to compile the data from two minutely different 2D sources of the same reality and project a resultant 3D perspective to our conscious. We trust that our brain provides us with an accurate portrayal of the physical world, despite knowing the many tricks it is capable of and the inherent shortcomings of comprehension that plague it.
After all, that is what evolution has done up to this point: provide an increased awareness of the physical reality as life has advanced. Our visual senses (our optics) independently of the brain only capture the 2D perspective of the physical world. It is our brain that allows us to compile the data from two minutely different 2D sources of the same reality and project a resultant 3D perspective to our conscious. We trust that our brain provides us with an accurate portrayal of the physical world, despite knowing the many tricks it is capable of and the inherent shortcomings of comprehension that plague it.
Some people wonder why evolution would provide us with a command center for comprehension that cannot reliably comprehend reality. A sensible answer to this question would be that its faults are not intentional; that the brain humans possess right now is not a final product. After all, the brain is an immensely complicated biological feature, one which would be expected to require an enormous evolutionary timespan to perfect. By this thinking, our current brain is therefore a mere draft somewhere in the middle of this process.
Another interesting question to ask is how the brain is capable of understanding and accounting for its own mistakes. How can an erroneous system correctly identify and account for its own errors while all the while being erroneous? The key to this, as it is in fundamental genetics, is diversity. Brains with varying intelligence and self-awareness levels allow an individual brain to perceive the errors of brains below its own intelligence and self-awareness level. Being cognizant of these errors does not necessarily void the brain of the same errors, but allows a brain to recognize when they might be occurring and to account for them with reason (of course, reason too is subject to errors of the brain and also to a lack of knowledge). Only when a brain is made aware of its potential for a certain error can it begin the process of circumventing it. A brain does not always need another brain for such an enlightenment to occur, though. Sometimes the senses can serve this purpose, as is especially relevant in science. Nevertheless, from this line of reasoning it becomes evident that even the most intelligent, self-aware person in the world is still subject to errors of the brain, because a more powerful brain can always exist. Will the evolution of the brain eventually cease at some limit of intelligence? Would such a happening equate the brain’s knowledge with the absolute truth of physical reality?
i personally don't think any universal, absolute truth of physical reality does exist but for the sake of argument, if it did what would be the criteria for that super-highly evolved brain to be able to fathom it? an impossibility of making any errors?
ReplyDeleteits very interesting how you explained the way a brain can correct itself. that all involves perception though. do you think if there really is an absolute truth to everything, would it be able to be perceived? if not, how would the brain fathom it? that goes into the question of what the brain is without any form of perception though.. pretty complicated philosophy