> bypass the thinking, which is costly and slow. Costly, sure, but slow? Like for that to be the case you would need to compare it to something, and you can't,

> bypass the thinking, which is costly and slow. Costly, sure, but slow? Like for that to be the case you would need to compare it to something, and you can't, as there is no apples to oranges comparison. Instincts are not an alternative, it's a layered system and we have plenty of instinctual thoughts interconnecting the two. Instincts can't learn "at runtime". Also, "moods"/flight or fight, etc are all precursors to thinking, and they seems to be very viable all across the animal kingdom. Filtering information (e.g. not interpreting "pain" signals during an emergency situation) also seems to be an excellent idea. Does "human thinking" have negatives? Sure, so does the "design" of air and food entering the body at the same orifice, but "evolution" quite clearly seems to be fine with either.