On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>> >>> 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but >>>>> that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other >>>>> things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing >>>>> to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). >>>>> >>>> >>>> These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely >>>> precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to >>>> mistake it for anything else. >>>> >>>> If you say so... >>> >>>> >>>>> But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in >>>>> order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous >>>>> ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the >>>>> subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you >>>>> conscious of, but everithing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so >>>> that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more >>>> easily >>>> confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but >>>> we >>>> shouldn't take them seriously. >>>> >>>> >>> You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is >>> the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something >>> based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and >>> evolutionary biology. >>> >> >> What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to >> advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all >> reverse engineered story telling. >> >> There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only > until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or > against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited > extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc > is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what > mechanisms have evolved and why. > > For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being "for" > protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them > harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some > experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the > stripes gave. >
Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
