this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
641 points (98.1% liked)
science
27602 readers
373 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your brain wasn't designed at all.
Iteratively designed by evolution to maximize survival, I guess
Yeah, so you could easily say we evolved to, or our brains evolved to... And so on
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
No, in fact that is still teleological.
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'
Evolved into or evolved with may reduce the implication of an intention.
Since we’re all being pedantic about words here, we wouldn’t say our brains evolved to X because it’s our ancestors’ evolutionary precursor brains that evolved into ours.
I’d suggest we just back off the pedantry in general. The headline could have said “your brain isn’t suited to…” if they wanted to avoid the possible implication of a deity but I think we know what they were trying to say.
Don't mind me, I had a prof who was uptight about it. I am sure it would only matter for formal or technical writing, like a scientific paper.
Oh I don’t mind. I just thought it an interesting question. I would like to know your prof’s reasoning for his insistence.
Because that would mean that 'evolve' can also be used teleologically, imho.
Yeah I dunno about design as much as iterative adaptations over incomprehensibly large periods of time.
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.
Settle down.
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.
Neanderthals evolved to traverse valleys just fine
I don't mean literal valleys.
That was just my highly-evolved sense of humour
And see where that got them!
Figure of speech. Perhaps "optimized" would be more accurate?
Ok