Hypotheses? Forget About It!

[surreptitious57]

If the brain is complex then the human body is more complex

The brain is not just a physical organ like any other organ which are only responsible for specific motor functions and nothing else
The brain is also responsible for formulating the unique philosophy and personality of every single individual
No two human beings think exactly the same because of their brains and their ability to think very uniquely
This remarkable variation within human beings demonstrates the complexity of the brain over anything else

[Univalence]

The brain is also responsible for formulating the unique philosophy and personality of every single individual

Jelly fish didn't need that. Why do humans?

[surreptitious57]

Humans dont really need it either in any strict biological or evolutionary sense
It just so happens that our brains are sufficiently complex to be able to do this

[RCSaunders]

Humans can survive very well if all they do is determined by choices based on what they know.

'Truth' has nothing to do with it.

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

Only that knowledge which correctly describes aspects of reality is truth. Everything else is superstition, credulity, or simply ignorance. No choices based on what is not true, that is, based on what incorrectly describes reality, can possibly succeed.

[Univalence]

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

“Disastrous” is a bit of an exaggeration.

When there is a noise in the bush - you choose to run.
It isn’t the 99 times that you made a wrong choice that matter. Those aren’t disastrous mistakes.

It is the one time you chose not to and you get eaten.

[RCSaunders]

Knowledge acquisition has always existed or else we would be extinct long before now like any species would
We may still be ignorant but complete ignorance and survival of the human race are not mutually compatible

I think you are basically correct, but your introduction of "survival of the human race" has led the whole discussion away from the main issue.

It is not the survival of a race or species that depends on knowledge, it is the survival of individual human beings. Knowledge is required by human beings because everything done as a human being must be consciously chosen. To make correct choices knowledge is necessary. "Mankind," does not make choices, only individuals do. Minds exist one to an individual and choices pertain only to individuals.

[So-called "collective choices" are only the sum and consequence of individual choices. Historically, most collective choices were disasters, e.g. every war and atrocity.]

[RCSaunders]

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

“Disastrous” is a bit of an exaggeration.

A hyperbole, perhaps, but to what do you attribute the number of individuals today living disastrous lives? I don't think it is their choices based on knowledge.

[Univalence]

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

“Disastrous” is a bit of an exaggeration.

A hyperbole, perhaps, but to what do you attribute the number of individuals today living disastrous lives? I don't think it is their choices based on knowledge.

There are plenty of ignorant people leading non-disastrous lives too...

[A_Seagull]

Humans can survive very well if all they do is determined by choices based on what they know.

'Truth' has nothing to do with it.

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

Not at all. People survived very well for many thousands of years believing that the world was flat.

Only that knowledge which correctly describes aspects of reality is truth. \.

Again, not at all, it is not possible to discern whether knowledge ever 'correctly' describes aspects of reality. Or do you have some method of doing this that does not involve a considerable amount of 'hand-waving'?

[RCSaunders]

If what one thinks they know is not true, it is false, and any choices based on that false knowledge will be disastrous.

Not at all. People survived very well for many thousands of years believing that the world was flat.

It is not ignorance that kills, it is making choices based on that ignorance. As long as individuals make choices based on what they know and not on what they believe that is not true, their choices can be successful.

Only that knowledge which correctly describes aspects of reality is truth. \.

..., it is not possible to discern whether knowledge ever 'correctly' describes aspects of reality.

If you are unable to discern whether or not what you believe is true and correctly describes the nature of that to which it pertains, I'll accept your word for it. Nevertheless, it is always possible to know if what one believes is based on reason from the evidence reality presents and therefore true. As evidence, the entire periodic table of the chemical elements is known to correctly describe those aspects of reality to which it pertains, that is, the nature and characteristics of the chemical elements.

[A_Seagull]

Nevertheless, it is always possible to know if what one believes is based on reason from the evidence reality presents and therefore true.

You mean like the Earth is flat? It is a rational conclusion from the evidence. And therefore 'true'?

[RCSaunders]

Nevertheless, it is always possible to know if what one believes is based on reason from the evidence reality presents and therefore true.

You mean like the Earth is flat? It is a rational conclusion from the evidence. And therefore 'true'?

It is not a rational conclusion from the evidence, it is a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence. The ability to know does not require omniscience.

[Univalence]

It is not a rational conclusion from the evidence, it is a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence. The ability to know does not require omniscience.

If you reject omniscience as knowledge-criterion, then you are necessarily talking about relativistic knowledge.

The Earth is approximately round, but that's a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
The Earth is approximately spherical, but that's a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
The Earth is approximately oblate, but that's a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

And that's just describing it shape. What about all its other attributes?

Wrong is relative

Which just begs more questions.

How incomplete is complete enough?
How imprecise is precise enough?

[surreptitious57]

Earth is a bad example to use because it can be photographed from space
And so its precise shape can be determined with no possibility of any errors

We also know the exact circumference of the equator and the exact distances between the poles
This information tells us it is wider across the equator and therefore makes it an oblate spheroid

All cosmological bodies such as rocky planets and moons will be shaped like this as perfect spheres cannot exist in Nature

[Univalence]

Earth is a bad example to use because it can be photographed from space

Au contraire!

It's a perfect example for demonstrating that it's not round, spherical or oblate either!

Circles, spheres and spheroids don't have peaks (stupid mountains!) and troughs (stupid valleys!).