This is an excellent point. I’d like to deflate it a little bit though, since your supporting comments for the evolution of sweating mechanisms are part of a general principle.
For every mental strength we confidently point to, there will be an excellent physical strength we could also point to as a proximate cause, and vice versa. Discussions like this sound like evolutionary “missing link” arguments for the fossil record, where any 2 provided examples imply some intermediate step that’s roughly as deserving of attention.
Pointing out that brains are a profound development in evolutionary history has more to do with helpfulness for deriving new insights and consolidating the lessons of history than it does with measuring some global score of evolutionary value. Maybe sweating scores higher in evolutionary value than the unification of brains, but I predict that developing the AI equivalent of sweating will be significantly easier than developing the AI equivalent of brains. If you believe otherwise though, then calling attention to sweating is worth more words.
For every mental strength we confidently point to, there will be an excellent physical strength we could also point to as a proximate cause, and vice versa.
I agree with you. I just find the particulars oddly inspiring—even if we are not the fastest land hunters, we are genetically the most persistent. This is a lesson from biology that bears thinking about.
Also, we could point to our physical strengths, but people usually don’t. We collectively have this body image of ourselves as being “squishy”, big brains compensating for weak, frail bodies. I like disabusing that notion.
This is an excellent point. I’d like to deflate it a little bit though, since your supporting comments for the evolution of sweating mechanisms are part of a general principle.
For every mental strength we confidently point to, there will be an excellent physical strength we could also point to as a proximate cause, and vice versa. Discussions like this sound like evolutionary “missing link” arguments for the fossil record, where any 2 provided examples imply some intermediate step that’s roughly as deserving of attention.
Pointing out that brains are a profound development in evolutionary history has more to do with helpfulness for deriving new insights and consolidating the lessons of history than it does with measuring some global score of evolutionary value. Maybe sweating scores higher in evolutionary value than the unification of brains, but I predict that developing the AI equivalent of sweating will be significantly easier than developing the AI equivalent of brains. If you believe otherwise though, then calling attention to sweating is worth more words.
I agree with you. I just find the particulars oddly inspiring—even if we are not the fastest land hunters, we are genetically the most persistent. This is a lesson from biology that bears thinking about.
Also, we could point to our physical strengths, but people usually don’t. We collectively have this body image of ourselves as being “squishy”, big brains compensating for weak, frail bodies. I like disabusing that notion.