evolution of human perceptions

just be yourself

pattern and color are ancient. They cannot be recent because many plants and animals use color and pattern as warning signals. We instinctively flinch if a large yellow striped insect lands on our leg, we tend not to chew on brightly colored mushrooms, etc.

We perceive time as a proportion of the day, this is why we don't notice the fact that tidal forces actually make each day longer than the next.

We perceive basic emotions for survival reasons. Is this person angry or dangerous? Is this person crying because of danger? Shrieks of pain or fear serve as important warning signals to the rest of the tribe. A person who appears sated will be less likely to steal your bacon. A person who looks starving is someone you should look out for.

Honestly, if you ask me, we lead less fulfilling lives than chimpanzees, since all chimps do is socialize and eat and sleep which is essentially what humans would default to doing if not for all this extra bs.

>>9919672
Evolutionary Biology is a highly speculative science, but that's the field you want to look into. Most of the specific things you're asking about are probably pre-human evolutions, which also makes hypothosizing them difficult. Check out work done with chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans.

For more sociological texts, check out Sapiens by Harari.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bruner/Cards/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFYBY_YUH5I

This experiment is proof that what we see is not determined by the nature of the external world per se but more so just by what we expect to see. The perceptual machinery of the human mind looks for patterns and when reality does not fit a deeply-ingrained pattern our perception of reality is warped by our own mind to fit with the pattern anyhow.

>>9919756
>using a fake card to trick people with rapid image association
>that suggestive 3 of hearts flickering in-between each succession of the series of cards
Horse shit for gay retards

Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett.

then, once you're ready to set aside the evolutionist horseshit, pick up side introductory texts to phenomenology, like The Phenomenology Reader.

>>9919672
Steven Pinker, "how the mind works" addresses this.

holy shit I love you OP, you ask great questions by reflex, please go seriously into philosophy

look into
>hegel's historicizing of the kantian deduction of the conditions of our knowledge
>husserlian phenomenology
>proto-phenomenology like stumpf and gestalt psychology
>merleau-ponty's phenomenology of percepton
>heidegger's historicizing of the history of how we encounter being
>bachelard
>koyre
>whitehead
>foucault's Order of Things

neo-darwinianism is a very rigid and brittle paradigm, and it only goes "one way" in considering how mind and its genetic bases develop through time. if you want a more dialectical approach you will have to get into experimental and esoteric things out on the fringes

>>9919682
fpbp

>>9919693
>we lead less fulfilling lives than chimpanzees

I get the gist of what you're saying, but I disagree; with our heightened self-conciousness we're able to create a narrative of our lives in addition to actually living it. But, whether or not this narrative is of any value is dependent on the individual.

>>9919672
>misconstrues evolution as some path or means to an end
no, it is a meaningless collection of processes