PaperWeightGames t1_ixm40ze wrote
Reply to comment by Todayjunyer in The Philosophy of Humor: Three theories about what makes something funny. Essay by philosopher Chris A. Kramer (SBCC) by thenousman
Overconfidence leads to a higher rate of being wrong. You should discuss things more before making assumptions. I'll attempt to rephrase my point so you can better understand it.
The biological product of an extremely thorough process of trial and error, your biological design, cannot see. You can see, but you as a consciousness are not your body. The reason your body does not consult your eyes is because it is aware, most likely through the aformentioned process of trial and error, that your conscious mind is not fully perceptive. You might not know there are people watching you or within earshot.
I suspect the reason this is optimal is because breaking engagement with the thing making you laugh means you lose the information it is providing whilst you look to see if anyone is nearby, which would then warrant laughter.
Possibly more importantly, if we had to do a paremeter sweep before laughing, the source of the information / novelty / laughter might have expired by the time we've drawn other people to it. Laughter is immediate and distinct.
From the perspective of designing a biological organism in an optimal way, this makes a lot more sense than having to engage the conscious mind in a decision making process and commit its attention to another task (seeking peers to draw the attention of).
​
On your points about yourself, you sound like you might be an extreme outlier. In my moderate life experience I've not met a single person who could consciously decide when to laugh, what to find funny and how loudly to laugh. People have some restraint, to a degree, in specific situations, but what you're reporting is completely unheard of in the human race to my knowledge. A comedian might learn how to not laugh at things they find funny, but laughing is still an instinctive behaviour.
I'm not sure how your comment onf Mastication is relevant.
Todayjunyer t1_ixnqgtd wrote
Everything you typed is not related to evolution whatsoever. Mastication is directly related to evolution. That’s the difference. Use a different word. It’s not evolution. Laughter has nothing to do with evolution of humans. It’s has to do with cultures. There are cultures in history who NEVER laugh. Laughter is not an evolutionary function of humans. It’s a learned social behavior based out of culture. It is absolutely NOT instinctive. When someone tickled you, your animal brain wants to murder them. SOCIETY and culture has taught you to laugh instead. That’s cultural dude. Tribes in the Amazon do not laugh. They murder things. That’s evolution.
PaperWeightGames t1_ixrnil6 wrote
You seem incredibly comfortable in your ignorance so I'll just leave you to it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments