Aurino,

I don't wish to whitewash this topic by saying that evolution answers all the problems, because it doesn't. Evolutionary answers face severe philosophical problems just like any other 'solution'. However, because I believe in evolution, and I believe in naturalism, I believe that fundamentally evolutionary mechanisms stand the best chance of answering these philosophical dilemmas. If my assumptions are incorrect (e.g., naturalism), then we can forget about evolutionary models providing answers to these philosophical questions.

So, coming from these basic assumptions, let me reply to your post:

>>>How does the baby know that that's where the solution to his hunger problem is? The obvious answer is that such behaviour is encoded in the baby's genes. The not so obvious consequence of that answer is, how did such knowledge got there in the first place? At one point in history there was a mammal who didn't have the instinct to search for motherly milk in response to the feeling of hunger. How did that animal find the solution to its problem before it starved to death?At some point in evolution a mind appeared which encoded the right "definitions" as well as the right basic rules, and the rest is history. But what are those definitions and those rules, and how can we be sure that they are really the ones that better correspond with reality?

• I'm afraid you missed it - aurino - July 24, 2001 - 19:50 UTC
  • Pragmatic knowledge - harvey1 - July 24, 2001 - 21:13 UTC
    • Metaphysics the way I see it - ezekiel - July 25, 2001 - 03:47 UTC
    • So God did it then? - aurino - July 25, 2001 - 13:29 UTC
      • Let's clarify more - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
        • Progress indeed - aurino - July 25, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
          • Information comes from trial/error (learning). - alexander - July 25, 2001 - 18:07 UTC
          • More clarification needed - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 18:18 UTC