On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles <charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I agree that the statement "evolution has programmed us to
> think of ourselves as a single individual", etc is rather contentious
> as an explanation of why we think this way. It seems to imply that
> there are many other ways we *could* think of ourselves, and that
> evolution has been at work on our genes to choose those of us who
> think of ourselves this way because it confers some survival /
> reproductive advantage. However, it's possible that there are no other
> choices: we "move forward in time," for example, because the entropy
> gradient won't allow any other form of creatures to exist, we think of
> ourselves as individuals because, fictional ant colonies aside, that's
> the only realistic (or simple) way to build conscious creatures
> (actually, it's quite possible we aren't individuals - we seem to
> contain at least two "individuals" who share a lot of their resources,
> as split-brain operations show).
We could, for example, have the belief that we only survive for a day,
and the entity who wakes up in our bed tomorrow is a different person.
We would then use up our resources and plan for the future as if we
only had hours to live. But people who acted as if they believed this
would not be very successful.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at