From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 19:19:55 MDT
> spike66 wrote:
> >> Spike wrote: >>perhaps adult
> >>
> >>> males which maintain some juvenile characteristics
> >>> would enjoy a relatively greater appeal to the
> >>> female population... Since human babies have relatively
> large heads
> >>> with respect to their bodies, perhaps female-
> >>> choice societies would tend to evolve populations
> >>> with bulbous heads. That is the best way I can
> >>> explain how humans came to have such enormous
> >>> brains
> >
> >
> >> gts wrote:
> >>
> >> That's a pretty bizarre idea, spike, but at the moment I
> can't think
> >> of any
> >> way to refute it.
> >
> >
> > I didn't invent this notion. The idea is an outgrowth of
> > theories presented in Geoffrey Miller's excellent work
> > The Mating Mind.
>
It seems like a pretty strange idea that the neo-cortex would have evolved
just to fill up space in a newly oversized skull. There'd have to be simpler
ways to do that (like some spac-filler). The brain is a bit complex, after
all. It seems like a silly idea to me.
I have this weird notion that intelligence turned out to be a massive
competitive advantage, especially long term in making the organism more
adaptable. It seems to me that everything about humans is tuned to the
service of a general intelligence; fingers instead of claws, a mouth evolved
for speaking rather than devouring; a body which can travel pretty much
anywhere, while being pretty mediocre in any terrain; no fur, because
clothing is more immediately adaptable. The human form is a jack of all
trades, master of none; it just has to be minimally proficient in any
conceivable arena, and let the extraordinary mind think of ways to overcome
lack of specific physical competitiveness.
I'm just making that up, but it's always seemed obvious to me (often an
indicator of being wrong). So is it wrong?
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 21:48:22 MDT