Human understanding, in terms of how we convey what weve learned across generations seem to be closely linked to social singing in birds via conserved molecular mechanisms that seem to have escaped the notice of philosophers. For example, the origin of the olfactory placode in vertebrates links the cell types involved in singing from birds to language development in humans via gene expression and FOXP2 in miR-9 and miR-140-5p Target FoxP2 and Are Regulated as a Function of the Social Context of Singing Behavior in Zebra Finches. FoxP2 also links reproductive success to nutrient-dependent bird odors across a continuum of ecological adaptations required for species diversity. Philosophers who are taught to think in terms of mutation-initiated natural selection, which is neither biologically plausible nor ecologically validated by experimental evidence, are not likely to tell us how we mutated into a species with a brain capable of understanding anything except a straightforward null hypothesis of mutation-driven evolution that has not been been questioned. Why havent philosophers asked: How does mutation-driven evolution lead to understanding the meaning of anything? Do philosophers understand the fact that there is only one biologically-based model for that? jneurosci.org/content/33/42/16510.abstract
Posted on: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015