virus: RE : Smart Asses, The Reason for Reason, Level-3

Hakeeb A. Nandalal (
Sun, 03 Nov 1996 18:16:33 +0000

Noctem wrote :-

> Mensa's statement is simply the equivalent to "articles
> published in these pages do not necessarily represent the views and
> opinions of the editors." I see no problem with that. Do you?

You're right, I was just being bitchy. Have you ever been in a situation where upon encountering someone you
perceive to be superior to you in intellect, talent or just plain looks, your first instinct is to tear them
down? No? Then forget I mentioned it then. Me neither!

Noctem also wrote :-

> The reason subject is one on which Neo-Tech literature has an
> interesting take (based largely on Julian Jaynes' work): that
> survival pressures forced the invention of reason and that it was
> taught as a survival technique rather than developed as a genetic
> feature. This would help explain R. B.'s jump from the level-1 to the
> level-2 mind. It would also explain the mechanism of the development
> of the level-3 mind, which would be an invented survival adaptation
> to living in a multicultural society.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of something being "invented" which we in turn call "man-made"
and finally "unnatural". Given that everything falls in the set of Nature, how can we differentiate between
a bird's nest and a skyscraper? Why is the former "natural" and the latter "unnatural"?

Could it be that one is the result of genetic programming while the other is the result of memetic
programming? Are all structures built by animals the result of built-in instinct or are there cases where
the skill must be taught by (say) its parents? I need to watch National Geographic some more. I remember
reading about certain chimp groups which have the capability of picking up termites out of underground nests
with sticks but the skill had to be taught by other chimps. The human observer who reported this could not
easily find nor infiltrate the termite nests in a similar manner for himself.

This leads to the question : does "invented survival adaptation" fall in the realm of a natural or unnatural
occurrence despite the nomenclature? If we were being observed by a superior alien race from afar, would we
qualify as "tool inventing/using chimps" and everything we "invented" considered natural?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BTW, I humbly request that you to explain the meaning of "coporophagic" (my MS Word 6.0 spell check choked
on it and I couldn't find it anywhere on the entire web). At first I saw "co-pornographic" and thought
"Great! Someone else who appreciates 'Debbie Does Dallas'!". There's one art form that could be considered
natural and inventive.

Hakeeb's useful web page of the day (take note JPS) :-

Online Webster Dictionary

* *
* Hakeeb A. Nandalal "What does God want *
* with a spaceship?" *
* *