Humans evolved to pay close attention to danger, but today that instinct is being overwhelmed by an endless supply of bad news from around the world. Researchers say the answer isn’t to stop following current events—it’s to build healthier habits around how, when, and where we get our news.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 55 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Your brain wasn't designed at all.

[–] sniggleboots@europe.pub 43 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Iteratively designed by evolution to maximize survival, I guess

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, so you could easily say we evolved to, or our brains evolved to... And so on

[–] sniggleboots@europe.pub 1 points 13 hours ago

I just took issue with the very literal interpretation of the phrase "not designed for" and I couldn't hold my tongue

well, my fingers, I guess

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

No, in fact that is still teleological.

[–] MohamedMoney@feddit.org 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Is it? I’d guess 'to evolve to do smth' doesn’t necessarily need to be teleological. IIRC the verb 'evolve' means the fittest getting randomly selected, no?

I think I understand where you’re coming from but I think it’s fundamentally different to 'being designed with a specific goal in mind'

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 5 hours ago

Evolved into or evolved with may reduce the implication of an intention.

Our brains evolved into structures capable of supporting complex language.
Our brains evolved with the capacity for complex language.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 20 hours ago

Yeah I dunno about design as much as iterative adaptations over incomprehensibly large periods of time.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Evolution did as much design as my socks design themselves to stay in their drawer. Evolution doesn't design, it works with what it has and nothing else. It doesn't even optimize because optimization requires choosing between options with intent. Evolution has zero intentions. Evolution creates un-"optimized" things that go extinct all the time, but it's not because it "failed" at designing because that implies it "tried" to design, but because it's not a designer, it can't design. No design made fish have legs. No design gave elephants their tusks and no design gave flies their wings. Evolution won't 'design' new vertebrae segments, but they still might happen---it just won't be because of any design.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Natural selection is actually technically an optimisation algorithm. Its just a kind of crappy one that only ever finds local maximas because it can't traverse valleys (the thing just dies). So we end up with optical receptors on the wrong side of our retina. Ooof.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Neanderthals evolved to traverse valleys just fine

[–] MohamedMoney@feddit.org 1 points 19 hours ago

And see where that got them!

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 9 points 21 hours ago

Figure of speech. Perhaps "optimized" would be more accurate?

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 21 hours ago