cohering.net home mind evolving home

  evolutionary inteligance of “Homo prospectus”
gary e. davis
August 24, 2017
 


Only the human form of life has gained the capacity to understand every other form of life in “Gaic” Singularity, such that We are leading planetarity—not as Domination!—toward linking with other planets before any other form of life on Earth grows to understand what is happening.

We find “intelligence” throughout animal life (even personifying plant dynamics as intelligent: “behaving badly”), but minds are few in kind. (Insects are “intelligent,” but is a mind dancing to indicate where the nectar is?).

Human mind is the singular kind—just for that reason deserving a notion of “mindality” that sets Us apart from all other kinds of mind (lacking what exactly? holistic inferentiality of the prefrontal lobe among higher primates?). We’re capable of tenable conceptions that are even rare among fellow selves (e.g., a post-metaphys-icalist philology).

Human mentability isn’t distinguished by any degree of “intelligence” that pertains
to other forms of intelligent life, rather by a kindness that ontogenically evinces
S
elfal mindality.

Basically, “intelligence” is learnability. Birds learn beyond hardwired capacities
for a short while (“imprinting”), then top out, using what has topped out. Ravens
top out long after wrens do. Bonobos top out long after monkeys do. But humans never top out. Ontogeny—human “evo-devo”—of mindality (potentially, at least)
tops out only at death.

So, I say that humans are inteligant, which sounds the same as ‘intelligent’, but is glyphically distinct (and will be further characterized in the next section of “some horizons”). Ontogeny of inteligance becomes epistemic, scientific, and artistic.
We express self-enhancive desire, becoming potentially high Selfalities that are irreducible to any non-glyphical domain of explanation (such as neurocomputational dynamics mappable into assemblies of “A.I.” modules). Imaginative mindality cares to desire fruitfully and can aspire to express a wholly flourishive life (which I earlier called “devo2,” beyond the standard approach to development relative to normally competent adulthood: “devo1”).

So, what’s the neuroscience of imaginability and creativity (or Gardner’s and Bloom’s geniuses, mentioned earlier)? It’s rather easy to see that a philosopher who tries
to address this kind of question may easily become philological, then finding practicality to be tropological.

Anyway, yea, Homo prospectus, “about what makes humanity what it is”: capability for devo2 individuation which contribute to human evolution—“evo2,” I called that earlier at “opening again.” Primordially futural humanity, oriented to evolving demic efficacy—evo2—is always prospective. Evo1 (of the standard notions of “evo-devo” bioscience) isn’t really about evolution. Evolution is about humanity—and about humanity’s relativization of all other forms of life to Our capability to find “progress” in nature (if not teleology). Human “development” is about individuation of given human lives which can become highly aspiring, highly accomplished, and highly
self-conceived.

There can be grandly phenomenal artistries of conception, high conceptual estates
of happy communion among enthalled minds designing horizonal gravities, and grandly reconstructive scientificity of evolving conceptions, as if synergies of wholly flourishive lives might wholly comprehend a comprehensiveness of ecologically thriving humanity—as if there is “the“ being of wholly flourishive humanity that might be eternally self-sustaining—and eternally fun, like some heaven.



 


< previous -|- Next: devo2/evo2 inteligance