...and so not fit to pronounce on anything with certainty, right?
So runs a common strain of cognitive defeatism. Claws, ovipositors, mandibles, the mind--these are nothing but best-effort adaptations to this or that environmental niche. But first, note that we can only know this to the extent that the theory of evolution itself is certain--but then the theory of evolution would be just the sort of thing a mind could not properly pronounce on: niche-adaptive tools do not produce certainties. So in effect we cannot be certain that we cannot be certain of anything. And certainly the last thing we should do is abduct this probability-tool from its proper environs--mammoths, campfires, those theories that have a chance of dying in our stead--and direct it towards own inner workings. Using a saw to saw a saw weakens the one and blunts the other. Bad enough. But the self-observing mind is recursive, uncertainty compounding with every reflective cycle. So the best thing to do is forego our vain ruminations, accept only those we cannot do without and otherwise let the mind attend to those things it's optimized for. Which most certainly would not include trying to call the mind a tool, because as a tool, this is precisely what the mind cannot do. Sophistry and illusion! . . . But what's this? Are we deferring to nature to dictate norms?
So runs a common strain of cognitive defeatism. Claws, ovipositors, mandibles, the mind--these are nothing but best-effort adaptations to this or that environmental niche. But first, note that we can only know this to the extent that the theory of evolution itself is certain--but then the theory of evolution would be just the sort of thing a mind could not properly pronounce on: niche-adaptive tools do not produce certainties. So in effect we cannot be certain that we cannot be certain of anything. And certainly the last thing we should do is abduct this probability-tool from its proper environs--mammoths, campfires, those theories that have a chance of dying in our stead--and direct it towards own inner workings. Using a saw to saw a saw weakens the one and blunts the other. Bad enough. But the self-observing mind is recursive, uncertainty compounding with every reflective cycle. So the best thing to do is forego our vain ruminations, accept only those we cannot do without and otherwise let the mind attend to those things it's optimized for. Which most certainly would not include trying to call the mind a tool, because as a tool, this is precisely what the mind cannot do. Sophistry and illusion! . . . But what's this? Are we deferring to nature to dictate norms?