Evolution: We Are All The Fittest

phyla

When you look at the above phylogenetic chart you can see how the species are differentiated.  However, there is another thing you should recognize.  There is both an evolutionary tree and a chain of being.  Left wing scientists tirelessly try to deny the chain of being, right wing scientists relentlessly try to deny the evolutionary tree.  Every phylia that is alive today is alive because it is fit to be alive today.  We are all the latest innovation at the end of our branch of the single evolutionary tree we all belong to.  A bacterium is just as evolved as you are.  It has taken just as many billions of years for it to be fit to survive in today’s environment as you.  However, humans are the most evolved beings.  And evolution is continuing, we are not the end product, just the current version.  Our offspring, irregardless of species are better adapted than we are to deal with whatever the environment throws at us.  Our children are not our descendants they are our ascendants.

The biggest mistake the Chinese ever made was to worship their ancestors.  This destroyed the creativity of the Chinese people.  We, the entire world must worship our children and apologize to our children for the mistakes we make.  We must not burn our money to provide for our ancestors in heaven.  We must invest our money into the future of our children.  We must not hold elaborate funerals, we must celebrate every birth.  Not our place in death in the past, but the place of our children in the future must be our goal and our heaven.

As Desiderata says, “You are a child of the Universe.  No less than the stars and the trees, you have a right to be here.”

Our responsibility is to recognize everyone and everything else has a right to be here, too.

Happy Mother’s Day.

The Brain: Hardwiring and Softwiring

I’m just finishing a very fine book by Steven Pinker, The Languange Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language

and several years ago I read Donald D. Hoffman’s book, Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. Both books deal with the same subject: What part of our minds are hardwired–instinct–and what parts of our minds are softwired–reason. It is a truly fascinating exploration.

Stephen Pinker in The Language Instinct very thoroughly explores all the aspects of spoken language. He discusses how broken pidgin languages are turned into grammatically rich creoles by children. He explains that whether a person learns a language or not they can have complex thought he calls Mentalese. He explains Chomsky’s concept of a Universal Grammar and how, with language, learning does not cause mental complexity, but mental complexity causes learning. He reveals that children have an acute sense of the morphology of words and rapidly acquire vocabulary as listemes because of the nature of the relationship between child, adult and reality. The perception of speech as well as the physical production of speech is explored. How we derive meaning from language rejects the technical concept of packets being transmitted and received for a much more subjective process of interpretation. The ability of children to learn language is treated as an evolutionary trade off existing only long enough to adopt the tribes language and then shutdown to make way for other special priorities. The “Language Organ” or region of the brain that is responsible for speech is narrowed down. The chain of being is pushed aside for the bush of evolution to reveal that hundreds of thousands of generations existed for language and homo sapiens sapiens to evolve separate from all our other primate cousins. The difference between living spoken language is separated from living written language, the discipline required for each and the fact that language is never in decay. Finally the relativism of the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) or tabula rasa as proposed by Margaret Mead is rejected, Pinker takes sides with the Evolutionary Psychologists stating that environment alone cannot create the complexity of the mind, the mind must have many complex modules to be able to learn from the environment at all. He discusses Donald E. Brown’s Universal Person (UP) inspired by Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG). Finally, Pinker tries to define the modules of the human mind and here I get excited as I find I am able to fit them easily into the Six Hats, Six Coats model. Pinker says that language is a system and extrapolates to say humans are a system of both hardwiring and softwiring.

Hoffman’s book deals with an aspect of mind that more easily subscribes to the module concept than language because it is a much more detached, empirical exercise to test for the visual hardwiring that humans have through the use of visual illusions. Hoffman takes us through many aspects of vision such as facial recognition, edge and shadow and color and the perceptual development of children to reveal what appears to be hardwired and softwired. He concludes with a relativistic statement, but I think that he chooses this because of the political desire of scientists to distance themselves from the eugenics of the first half of the 20th century instead of an objective conclusion that, yes, we have a complex module in our brain specifically hardwired and softwired for vision as used by our species. In other words, when presented with the depth of Steven Pinker’s work compared to the breadth of Donald Hoffman’s work, I believe that we do have a vision instinct.

All in all I believe that Steven Pinker’s and Donald Hoffman’s work is revealing that humans minds are far more than just an empty neural net at birth. That in fact there is an evolved complex predefined structure that humans make use of through the learning stages of childhood to understand their environment that diminishes to adult levels at puberty. Consequently, no form of Artificial Intelligence will succeed unless it also comes with a robust collection of Artificial Instincts.

Related Article: