4 ms·

Why would it be? Evolution is mostly driven by getting enough calories and mates. If your brain needed to be twice as big and needed twice the calories to perfo

• javajosh 13y ago
  I'm not saying that we should be introspective in lieu of reproducing. It's not an all or nothing thing. BTW that same line of argument could be made against philosophy or even large portions of science, but clearly people can (and do) think about things that don't have an evolutionary advantage. But for some reason, direct knowledge (and manipulation) of our own minds is curiously out-of-reach.
  • guelo 13y ago
    Abstract thinking about their environment allowed our ape ancestors to be more adaptable and plan ahead, thus increasing their chances of surviving to procreate.
  • PeterisP 13y ago
    Larger brain by itself is a very strong evolutionary disadvantage - it consumes a lot of calories, and in humans it hampers childbirth which in out natural state is very deadly already. There is a strong pressure for us to have a brain that's "barely just enough" capable for the functions that increase survivability.
• jrlocke 13y ago
  That's a good point. Further, you are unlikely to pose a serious threat hiding food (or making political moves, scheming to find the best mate or whatever) from yourself. Others do pose that threat. You can see the effects of the greater stakes by way of evolution. We can intricately reason with folk-psychology, "he believes she thought he put the food under the rock but he thinks she knows he knows she thinks he's going to hide it there, so he thinks he may get away with placing it there" but we are introspectively blind.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• danabramov 13y ago
  The debugger analogy is spot on.