You’re suggesting a teleological answer to an ateliological question. Just because something is adaptive doesn’t mean it had to evolve. The quorum correctly notes that we don’t actually know the mechanism here.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @sonyaellenmann
I mean just because something is "obviously" valuable to have doesn't mean it's clear that it is necessarily the case or that we know how/why it exists or how it works. Sex is a good example. Why it exists (reproduction) and how it works (pleasure) are two different questions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Replying to @vgr @sonyaellenmann
Consciousness goes the other way. It clearly exists, but unclear that it needs to (philosophical zombie). Transcendence instincts are somewhere between as legible as sex and as illegible as consciousness. Ants achieve collective higher purposes without any transcendence afaict.
0 replies
1 retweet
6 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.