From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin Tue May 12 15:49:45 EDT 1992
Article 5490 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: brains and information processing
Message-ID: <576@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 8 May 92 18:29:04 GMT
References: <1992May2.170158.5837@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992May5.201703.17963@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May6.205923.14479@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992May7.164257.17225@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May7.192257.23595@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 25

bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:

>In article <1992May7.164257.17225@psych.toronto.edu> 
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>
>>This sounds pretty teleological to me, but I think you've missed the point.
>>The question is why you would characterize information processing as
>>the *essential* function of the brain. Even if it is *a* function of
>>the brain, why *essential*?
>>
>  I take it as self-evident that brains have evolved because they
>contribute to the survival of organisms...
Brains have evolved because organisms possessing them have at least as
great a fitness as organisms with less developed (and more greatly
developed) versions of the same organ, with the fitness difference being
non-zero for organisms with nearly the same brain development. Fitness is
defined as the geometric average number of descendents over a long time
period, weighted by relatedness. This is not the same thing as survival.
In some cases, individual survival decreases fitness.

Cheers, 
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com



