4 ms·
Maybe but our perception should not be assumed to be correct. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to
by xupybd 4y ago
Maybe but our perception should not be assumed to be correct.
The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.
I'd be surprised if our eyes give us a truthful perception of reality. They give us a functional understanding that allows us to thrive here but nothing more.
- astrange 4y agoSimilarly, being high intelligence is not evolutionarily fit for any given problem because it costs more energy than just being good at that problem. (And saying "IQ" when you meant "intelligence" is a sign of a midwit.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 4y agoBut that's exactly my point, or at least an exemplification of it. If you want to marshal arguments for believing in things which are totally hidden from us, you're doing things like quoting "mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash." I would argue that believing in anything but immediate reality is what takes the most verbal or mental exertion.
- xupybd 4y agoAh, now I see where you are coming from. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, I agree totally.